Published on: 8 September 2023 at 11:02 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: N. Vijayakumar V. State of T.N. (2021)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against a Public Servant has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. It is held that the presumption under Section 20 of the POC Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved.
26. It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI and in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. In the aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence.
In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra