#Section 7 PCA

The Supreme Court has ruled that a demand under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act need not be proven by direct testimony if circumstantial evidence - including prior statements and corroborating witness accounts - collectively establishes the bribe transaction. This clarifies that a complainant’s inconsistent trial testimony does not automatically invalidate a prosecution, strengthening the state’s ability to secure convictions in covert corruption cases.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that allegations of bribe demand under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, supported by recorded conversations and witness accounts, establish a prima facie case, justifying trial continuation. The ruling reinforces that quashing at the pre-trial stage requires stronger exculpatory evidence, impacting public servants facing corruption charges.

The Gauhati High Court denied bail to a public servant caught accepting ₹10 lakh in a CBI sting, ruling that under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the mere acceptance of a bribe during a trap suffices to establish offence - even without a prior demand. This reinforces that trap-based prosecutions under Section 7 are not contingent on proof of solicitation, strengthening enforcement against public corruption.