#public servant corruption

The Kerala High Court has ruled that when a public servant sells jointly owned immovable property, only the portion of sale proceeds attributable to their unexplained income - not a fixed 50% - qualifies as disproportionate asset under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This clarifies asset accounting for public servants and prevents automatic presumption of guilt based on co-ownership, reinforcing the need for direct nexus between income and asset accumulation.

Orissa High Court reinforces that mere acceptance of a bribe under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act creates a presumption of guilt, irrespective of whether the accused had the authority to perform the promised act. The ruling underscores the strict liability imposed on public servants for corrupt practices, reducing the prosecution's burden of proof.