Corruption

Scamsters, babus with itchy palms get an escape route: Proof of demand of bribe to be adduced

The Supreme Court has set store by sections 7 and 13 of the Act according to which, it requires the prosecution to prove that bribe was demanded in the first place.

In other words, mere unearthing of the illegal money or assets is not sufficient to nail an official with an itchy palm-- it has to be proved by the prosecution that the accused demanded the bribe. This renders presumption of mens rea by section 20 not so helpful. Under section 20, it is presumed that the public servant took illegal gratifications with a view to facilitating the bending or circumventing of the law unless the accused proves otherwise through cogent evidence.

This is a big relief for the prosecution but the new requirement read in by the Apex Court would pour cold water on its enthusiasm, nay the very sustainability of the charge of corruption because first it has to discharge a very onerous responsibility-- finding the evidence for demand of bribes.