top of page
Question Bank
Question
In the context of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, explain why proving a "demand" for illegal gratification is considered a fundamental prerequisite for establishing an offence under Section 7?
Solution
For an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the proof of "demand" is considered a sine qua non, which is an essential and indispensable element. This means the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the public servant voluntarily and explicitly asked for the bribe. The mere recovery of money, by itself, is not sufficient to constitute an offence. The demand establishes the corrupt intent and the quid pro quo expectation. Without clear, cogent, and corroborative evidence of this demand, a conviction cannot stand, as recovery alone could be explained by other circumstances. The demand is the foundational fact upon which the entire case of illegal gratification rests.
Question
Under what conditions can the legal presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, be invoked against a public servant accused of corruption?
Solution
The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is a significant legal tool, but it is not automatic. This presumption, which states that a public servant accepting gratification other than legal remuneration is presumed to have done so as a motive or reward, can only be legally invoked after the prosecution has first successfully proved two foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt: first, the "demand" of illegal gratification by the accused, and second, its "voluntary acceptance". The presumption does not arise from the mere possession or recovery of tainted money. If the evidence for demand is weak, unreliable, or uncorroborated, the court cannot draw the presumption under Section 20, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Question
What is the evidentiary value of the sole testimony of a complainant in a trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and what is the requirement for corroboration?
Solution
The testimony of the complainant in a corruption trap case is generally considered that of an "interested witness" or a "partisan witness" because they have a vested interest in the success of the trap. While their testimony is not dismissed outright, it must be scrutinized with great care. The settled legal principle is that the sole testimony of the complainant cannot be the sole basis for conviction without corroboration from independent evidence. This corroboration is required to lend credibility and ensure that the testimony is reliable and not motivated. The need for independent evidence acts as a safeguard against false implications and ensures that the charge of corruption is proved to the stringent standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".
Question
Explain the legal concept of "acceptance" of a bribe and how it differs from the mere "recovery" of money in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Solution
In the law of corruption, "acceptance" refers to the voluntary and conscious receipt of illegal gratification by the public servant, knowing it to be a bribe for showing an official favour. It is an active act that demonstrates a meeting of minds. "Recovery", on the other hand, is merely the physical finding of the currency notes from a location, which could be a desk, a drawer, or a room. Crucially, recovery alone does not equate to acceptance. For instance, if money is found on a visitor's side of a table and not on the person of the accused or in a place under their exclusive control, and there is no proof they handled it, it weakens the inference of acceptance. The prosecution must prove a direct link between the accused and the voluntary acceptance of the money, which must follow a proven demand.
Question
What are the essential conditions that must be fulfilled for a tape-recorded conversation to be admissible as evidence in a court of law?
Solution
For a tape-recorded conversation to be admissible as evidence, the law mandates strict compliance with several conditions to ensure its authenticity and reliability. First, the voice of the speaker must be clearly identified and recognizable by the maker of the recording or other witnesses. Second, the accuracy of the recording must be proved by the person who made it. Third, there must be absolute certainty and the total exclusion of any possibility of tampering or erasure of the tape. Finally, the recording must be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by extraneous sounds. If a recording is inaudible and a transcript of doubtful origin is used to interpret it, the evidence becomes inadmissible. These safeguards are necessary to prevent the misuse of such potentially sensitive evidence.
bottom of page