AI Overview...
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13 - Main Points:
- Section 7 pertains to the offence of accepting or demanding illegal gratification by a public servant.
-
Section 13 deals with criminal misconduct by a public servant, including accepting gratifications as a motive or reward Vinod Keshavrao Khandare vs The State of Maharashtra - Bombay, Ravindra Narayan Joshi VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay, Banshidhar Singh VS State of West Bengal - Crimes.
-
Presumption under Section 20:
- Section 20 creates a presumption of guilt if a demand for illegal gratification is proved.
-
However, proof of demand is an essential prerequisite; without it, the presumption does not attract STATE OF HP vs HARI SARAN - Himachal Pradesh, STATE OF HP vs RAMESH CHAND - Himachal Pradesh, MANOJ KUMAR SON OF SHRI CHIV CHARAN SINGH vs STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - Himachal Pradesh.
-
Bail considerations:
- Courts have granted or denied bail based on the strength of evidence, particularly focusing on whether there is proof of demand.
-
In cases where demand is not proved, the presumption under Section 20 does not apply, influencing bail decisions Vinod Keshavrao Khandare vs The State of Maharashtra - Bombay, Banshidhar Singh VS State of West Bengal - Crimes.
-
Judicial approach:
- Courts emphasize the importance of establishing demand for illegal gratification to invoke Section 20 presumption.
- In absence of demand proof, accused are often granted bail, and convictions become difficult STATE OF HP vs HARI SARAN - Himachal Pradesh, STATE OF HP vs RAMESH CHAND - Himachal Pradesh.
Analysis and Conclusion:
Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7 and 13 criminalize the acceptance and demand of illegal gratification by public servants. The presumption of guilt under Section 20 is conditional upon proof of demand; without it, the presumption does not hold. Consequently, in bail applications, courts scrutinize whether demand has been proven. If demand is absent, bail is typically granted, reflecting the legal requirement that proof of demand is essential for invoking the presumption of guilt under the Act multiple references.
Search Results for "Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 7and 7a Bail"
• India - Bench at Aurangabad
S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short PC Act). 2. The investigation was set in motion on the basis of information given by Mr. ... The applicants in both these bail applications seek regular bail in connection with crime no.403 of 2023 registered with police station Bhagyanagar, Nanded, District Nanded for the offences punishable u/s 7and 12 of the a href="./..
2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 2242 • India - Bombay
SADHANA S.JADHAV
In fact, the charge ought to have been framed under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, since Prevention of Corruption ... Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13 Illegal gratification Proof of. ... ... Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13 and 20 Illegal ... In fact, the charge ought to have been framed under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, since Prevention of ....
• India - Crimes
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 20 – Illegal gratification – ... and acceptance of gratification are proved – Prosecution failed to prove elements of motive or reward to induce complainant to act ... The Charge-Sheet was filed against the appellant for the alleged commission of offences under Section 7 of the said Act of 1988 and punishable under Section 13(2) of the said Act of 1988. 7. ... The appellant is on ba....
• India - Crimes
ANU MALHOTRA
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Sections 13 (1)(d) and 20 – Indian Penal ... Corruption Act, 1988 and for commission of offences punishable under Section 186, 201 read with Section 511 read with Section 224 ... judgment convicting appellant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of ... The legal presumption envisaged in Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “ the #....
2019 0 Supreme(Telangana) 348 • India - Telangana
B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13 (2), 13 (1) (d) – Appeal against the accused beyond ... Corruption Act, 1988, (for short ‘the P.C. ... If the, Government had set up a Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department as was done in the State of Madras and the said department was entrusted with enquiries of this kind, no exception can be taken to an enquiry by officers of this department but any such enquiry must proceed in a fair and reasonable ... The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gra....
2021 0 Supreme(Del) 560 • India - Delhi
ANU MALHOTRA
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 & 13(2) read with Sections 13 (1)(d) - Indian Penal Code ... , 1988, appellant had also given a blow to SI when he had tried to apprehend him after shadow witness had given the pre-appointed ... solution, establishes also that during the course of the commission of offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Act ... The legal presumption envisaged in Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the ....
• India - Delhi High Court
P.K.BHASIN
Act, 1988 is made out against both the accused." 5. ... Act, 1988 are fulfilled in this case and the charge u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act is proved against the accused V.S. Murthy. 26. ... Act, 1988.......... 25. Bare perusal of aforesaid provision would show that as per definition u/s 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 a public servant can commit criminal misconduct in above three ways. In view of my discussion above, accused V.....
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 7880 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA
Section 20 of the Prevention ofu Corruption Act, 1988 provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand is proved. It reads as under: 2o0. ... It is a settled law that in the absence of proof of demand, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act will not get attracted. In V. Venkata Subbarao vs. ... The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality for an offence under Sections 7and 13 of....
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 7941 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA
It is a settled law that in the absence of proof of demand, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act will not get attracted. In V. Venkata Subbarao vs. ... For all the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment of acquittal, dated 15.06.2016, passed by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, in Corruption Case No. 4/1 of 2012, is upheld. The bail bonds executed shall stand cancelled. ... On the basis of the written complaint of the compla....
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3334 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA
It is a settled law that in the absence of proof of demand, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act will not get attracted. In V. Venkata Subbarao vs. ... The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality for an offence under Sections 7and 13 of the PC Act. ... Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand is proved. It reads as under: 20. ... The....
Filter by Legal Phrase
