#Section 7 PC Act

The Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that prosecution under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires concrete evidence of demand for bribe and its acceptance - not just the recovery of money during a trap. This clarifies a critical evidentiary threshold for corruption cases, protecting accused persons from baseless proceedings based solely on circumstantial recovery.

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.

Kerala High Court reaffirms that conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires conclusive proof of both demand and acceptance of bribes, not merely circumstantial evidence. The ruling clarifies that corroboration by a decoy witness is not essential if the prosecution's evidence meets the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard, impacting corruption trials involving 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.

Calcutta HC rules that conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not require direct recovery of bribe money from the accused if circumstantial evidence, such as forensic handling of tainted currency, establishes demand. This precedent strengthens anti-corruption prosecutions by lowering the evidentiary threshold for proving bribery.

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