#bribe demand

The Himachal Pradesh High Court acquits a Patwari, ruling that while Section 7 of the PC Act demands proof of bribe demand, Section 13(1)(d) criminalizes gratification obtained through corrupt means even without explicit demand - but recovery of money after official duty is completed, without evidence of collusion or intent, cannot sustain conviction. This sets a critical precedent for prosecution strategies in corruption cases involving post-facto sting operations.

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not mandate prior government approval to register an FIR when a bribe demand is conclusively recorded and a trap operation is successfully executed. This clarifies that procedural safeguards under Section 17A apply to investigations, not to the initial triggering of criminal proceedings in clear-cut corruption traps, empowering ACB to act swiftly against documented extortion.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a public servant commits an offence merely by demanding or accepting a bribe-even if they lack the official authority to perform the requested act. This clarifies that the law targets the corrupt act itself, not the outcome, strengthening accountability across all levels of public service.

The Bombay High Court quashed corruption charges against a public servant where the alleged bribe was only requested by a third party, holding that the Prevention of Corruption Act requires concrete evidence of direct demand or acceptance by the official. This ruling reinforces that mere referral or administrative inaction cannot substitute for the essential elements of bribery under Section 7, protecting public servants from baseless allegations rooted in third-party malice or misunderstanding.

Bombay High Court upholds acquittal in a bribery case, ruling that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove the accused first demanded the bribe, not merely accepted it. The court also held that call detail records (CDR) are indispensable to establish phone-based bribery, setting a strict standard for corroboration.

Bombay HC's Aurangabad Bench dismissed the State's appeal, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish a direct bribe demand or acceptance under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court also invalidated the sanction due to conflicting opinions, setting a precedent for stricter evidence requirements in corruption cases against public servants.

Bombay High Court affirms that corroborative testimony from the complainant and shadow panch regarding a ₹7,000 bribe demand for cheque signature establishes guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, rejecting procedural inconsistencies as grounds for acquittal. The ruling underscores that minor lapses in trap execution do not override substantive evidence of corruption by public servants.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court acquitted a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act not because demand and receipt of bribe are both legally required, but because the prosecution failed to prove the demand beyond reasonable doubt amid contradictory documents and the complainant’s death. This ruling reinforces that trap proceedings must be supported by credible, consistent evidence - not just allegations.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that mere recovery of tainted money in trap cases is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution must establish the foundational fact of bribe demand beyond reasonable doubt to invoke Section 20's presumption, reinforcing due process for public servants.

Bombay High Court rules that mere gestures or non-verbal cues cannot constitute a valid bribe demand under the Prevention of Corruption Act unless accompanied by explicit verbal communication or corroborative evidence. The ruling underscores the need for clear proof of demand in corruption prosecutions, impacting public servants and anti-graft enforcement.

Bombay High Court ruled that mere completion of an official act without proof of bribe demand or motive fails to establish an offense under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The absence of a second pancha witness and documentary evidence of file dispatch further weakened the prosecution's case, reinforcing the need for strict proof in corruption allegations.

Kerala High Court affirms that proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential under PC Act 1988; solitary complainant testimony insufficient without corroboration.

Bombay High Court holds that gesture-based bribe demands without verbal confirmation fail to establish offence under PCA; sanction by incompetent authority invalidates prosecution.