LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Ayur   19 September 2017

Anti corruption

In the case of State v. A. Parthiban, (2006) 11 SCC 473, the Supreme Court laid down the difference between S. 7 and S. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The SC held that every acceptance of illegal gratification, whether preceded by demand or not, would be covered under S.7 of the PC Act , but if the acceptance of an illegal gratification is in pursuance of demand by a public servant then it would also fall under S. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.  whereas, In the case of B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P, 2014 CrLJ 2433, the Supreme Court held that for convicting under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d), the SC held that proof of demand is sine qua non for the offence under S.7 and S.13(1)(d). From the Parthiban judgment, it can be inferred that only acceptance is required to be proved for conviction under Section 7, However, as per B.Jayaraj Judgment, both demand and acceptance is required to be proved. The first judgement is in contravention with the other judgement, however, the same has not been overruled. My query: Whether demand is mandatorily required to be proved for offence under Section 7, or conviction under S.7 can be sustained on mere acceptance of money. Responses will be appreciated.



Learning

 2 Replies

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Advocate)     21 September 2017

please state facts of the case.

Ayur   21 September 2017

In my case, the Learned Trial Judge recorded that demand is not proved by the prosecution and hence acquitted the accused under section 13(1)(d). However, the Judge recorded that the prosecution proved acceptance and did not look into our explanation under Section 20 and convicted the accused under Section 7. My question is in the light of new judgment  State v. B.Jayaraj, conviction cannot be sustained in the absence of proof of demand, even though recovery and acceptance is made, since acceptance can only be done, if demand is made. Thus, proving demand is sine quo non for conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d).


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register