In Brief
This Constitution Bench decision resolves a conflict in prior Supreme Court judgments on proving corruption offences when the complainant is unavailable, dead, or hostile. The Court held that demand for illegal gratification—a sine qua non for guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act—can be proved through circumstantial evidence, other witnesses, or documentary evidence, not solely by the complainant's direct testimony. A hostile witness's evidence cannot be wholly rejected; creditworthy portions must be assessed with care. The statutory presumption under Section 20 applies to Section 7 but not Section 13(1)(d). The Court found no actual conflict between prior three-judge benches, as each correctly applied evidence principles to its facts. Individual cases should be heard by appropriate benches thereafter.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.