P. Somaraju vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 1263 - S.20 Prevent Of Corruption Act

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7,20 - The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is not automatic and arises only once the foundational facts of demand and acceptance are proved- For an offence under Section 7 of PC Act, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to prove the guilt. Mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute an offence under Section 7 of PC Act, unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe. The proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. (Para 18)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378,386 [Section 419,426 BNSS] - An Appellate Court undoubtedly has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 CrPC. However, due to the reinforced or ‘double’ presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be limited. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the record, the acquittal should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention is only warranted where the Trial Court’s view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in manifest miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the Appellate Court must address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal before reversing it and assigning its own. (Para 12)

LawLens - AI-Powered Legal Research for Indian Laws

Discover AI-powered legal research tools for Indian law professionals

AI-Powered Legal Research for Indian Laws