Скачать или смотреть Acquittal (“Bari”) under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

An “acquittal” (बरी) under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) occurs when the prosecution fails to prove the essential ingredients of the offense — particularly the demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant.

Courts have consistently held that mere recovery of tainted money without proof of demand and acceptance is insufficient for conviction.

Key Factors Leading to Acquittal

Absence of Demand:

The prosecution must prove that the accused demanded illegal gratification.

Mere possession or recovery of money without a proven demand does not constitute an offense.

No Dishonest Intention:

For Section 13(1)(d) to apply, the prosecution must establish that the accused acted with dishonest or corrupt intent to gain an undue advantage.

If the money is shown to be legitimate remuneration or wages, it cannot be treated as “illegal gratification.”

The Kerala High Court has affirmed that payment for genuine work is not a crime under the PC Act.

Insufficient Evidence:

When demand or acceptance cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt, or when trap witnesses or circumstantial evidence are inconsistent, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused.

Lack of Proof of “Obtainment”:

Section 13(1)(d) requires proof that the public servant “obtained” an advantage through corrupt or illegal means.

If the alleged gratification was not obtained dishonestly, or arose from legitimate transactions, acquittal follows.

Key Legal Principles for Conviction

Demand and Acceptance – Both Must Be Proven:

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are “sine qua non” (essential conditions) for conviction under both Sections 7 and 13(1)(d).

Evidence:

Proof may be oral, documentary, or circumstantial, but must demonstrate a clear and voluntary demand and receipt.

Standard of Proof:

The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt — any ambiguity or contradiction favors the accused.

In Essence

🔹 “Mere recovery of money is not enough — without clear proof of demand and acceptance, conviction under the PC Act cannot stand.”

This principle safeguards public servants from wrongful prosecution and upholds the integrity of criminal jurisprudence.

Prepared By:

Dr. Jinesh Soni – Advocate
📞 Mobile: 9772946899
📧 Email: [email protected]

#PreventionOfCorruptionAct, #PCAct, #Section7, #Section13, #IllegalGratification, #Acquittal, #Bari, #DemandAndAcceptance, #SineQuaNon, #SupremeCourtJudgment, #LegalAwareness, #AntiCorruptionLaw, #PublicServantRights, #CriminalLaw, #EvidenceLaw, #AdvocateDrJineshSoni, #MensRightsLawyer, #LegalEducation, #IndianLaw, #JusticeSystem, #LegalUpdates, #CorruptionCase, #TrapCase, #JudicialPrecedent, #RuleOfLaw#भ्रष्टाचारनिवारणकानून, #धारा7, #धारा13, #बरी, #अवैधलाभ, #मांगऔरस्वीकार, #न्याय, #कानूनीजानकारी, #कानूनऔरसमानता, #न्यायव्यवस्था, #लोकसेवकअधिकार, #कानूनीशिक्षा, #न्यायकेलिए