Abstract

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (referred to as ‘the Act’) is the main anti-corruption legislation in India. It addresses bribery and corruption offences committed by public servants. Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with public servants taking gratifications other than legal remuneration (illegal gratifications) in respect of an official act, while Section 13 of the Act pertains to criminal misconduct by public servants. Both sections are fairly broad in scope, and over the years, their scope and ambit have been interpreted by judicial precedent. In this case, the Supreme Court postulated the essential factors for determining whether bribery, as contemplated under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Act, has been committed. The court held that in order to prove an offence under these sections, it is necessary to establish that the public servant both demanded and accepted the bribe. The Supreme Court also dealt with the evidentiary value of a hostile witness's evidence and held that his or her evidence could not be ignored in its entirety merely because the witness has become hostile.

Keywords