Supreme Court On Corruption (2022)
Live LawPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Constitution Bench answers reference on whether circumstantial evidence can be used to prove demand of illegal gratification- In the absence of evidence of the complainant it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13 read with Section 13 of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution. Neeraj Dutta v. State, 2022 LiveLaw 1029 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Corruption by a public servant is an offence against the State and the society at large. Neeraj Dutta v. State, 2022 LiveLaw 1029 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 13 - The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act - The Failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw 192 : AIR 2022 SC 1134 : 4 SCC 574 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13 - it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known sources of income but the term "known sources of income" would mean the sources known to the prosecution and not the sources known to the accused and within the knowledge of the accused. State v. R. Soundirarasu, 2022 LiveLaw 741 : AIR 2022 SC 4218 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13 - Prosecution not required to conduct an open ended or rowing enquiry or investigation to find out all alleged/claimed known sources of income of an accused who is investigated under the PC Act, 1988.