INDIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Kamal Shankar, Varun Lamba, Arjun Narang and Shivam Jain, AZB & Partners
AZB & Partners Plot No A-8 Sector-4 Noida 201301 National Capital Region
Delhi India
Tel: + 91 120 417 9999 Fax: + 91 120 417 9900 Email: asif.ahmed@azbpartners.com Web: www.azbpartners.com
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the “PC Act”), as amended from time to time, constitutes the pri - mary legislative framework for addressing the menace of bribery and corruption-related offences by public servants. The courts in India have endeavoured to strike a careful balance between preventing misuse of the statutory machinery and ensuring that genuine anti-corruption efforts are not blunted, maintaining a strict enforcement posture. Presumption of Bribery Under the PC Act Section 20 of the PC Act establishes a statutory pre - sumption for cases involving bribery, providing that, if a public servant is found to have accepted any grati - fication other than legal remuneration, it is presumed that the gratification was accepted to influence the public servant’s official act or to forbear from perform - ing their official duty. Such a presumption is vital for the prosecution of corruption cases, especially when direct evidence of bribery is circumstantial and, in most cases, difficult to obtain. However, this presumption is not automatic; it requires the establishment of certain foundational facts, including proof of demand and acceptance of the bribe. The provision empowers the court to presume that a public servant’s acceptance of any undue advan - tage is tied to an act of corruption, unless the contrary is proved. However, this presumption operates only after the prosecution establishes the necessary facts – ie, the demand for a bribe by the accused and the
acceptance of that bribe. Without proving the applica - bility of these factors, the presumption of an offence under Section 20 of the PC Act cannot be invoked. The Supreme Court has been clear that, while Section 20 of the PC Act provides a strong tool in prosecuting corruption, it must not be misused. The law demands that the foundational facts must be proven first, and that a mere recovery of tainted money, or possession of a bribe, does not automatically lead to a presump - tion of corruption by the accused. In State of Lokayuktha Police v CB Nagaraj , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1175, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of an accused on the ground that there was no factum of demand. The Supreme Court fur - ther emphasised that an entire chain – beginning with demand, then acceptance and finally recovery – must be completed, and that such a presumption cannot cast an unwarranted onus on the accused. The Court rebutted the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act by pointing out the contradictions in the com - plainant’s testimony, which raised doubts over the existence of a demand for the bribe. Without proof of demand, the presumption under Section 20 could not be applied. Similarly, in Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani v the State of Gujarat , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 441, the Supreme Court emphasised that mere procedural irregularities, such as bypassing the tender process in allotment of a contract, do not automatically amount to corruption under the PC Act. The Court held that for a charge
157 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook