A. Karunanithi vs State 2025 INSC 967 - Prevention of Corruption Act
"To convict a person in corruption cases, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non.."
Sign in to read our notes on this judgment. Register @ citecase.in to subscribe !
Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) - The prosecution has to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence or circumstantial evidence - To convict a person under the aforesaid provision demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non- in the absence of any allegation or evidence that an accused demanded bribe from the complainant or he was acting in connivence with co-accused, he cannot be prosecuted for the commission of the crime of demanding and receiving illegal gratification. (Para 14-15)
Case Info
Case Name and Neutral Citation
- Case Name: A. Karunanithi & P. Karunanithi v. State Represented by Inspector of Police
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 967
Coram (Judges)
- Justice Pankaj Mithal
- Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Judgment Date
- August 12, 2025
Caselaws and Citations Referred
- Neeraj Datta vs State (NCT of Delhi)
- Citation: (2023) 4 SCC 731
- Mahendra Singh Chotelal Bhargad vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
- Citation: (1998) 2 SCC 357
Statutes/Laws Referred
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Section 7
- Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)
- Constitution of India
- Article 142
