CHAPTER V SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Section 20: Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

¹[Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or under section 11, it is proved that a public servant accused of an offence has accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any undue advantage from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain that undue advantage, as a motive or reward under section 7 for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly either by himself or by another public servant or, as the case may be, any undue advantage without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate under section 11.]

Footnotes in the official text

1.Subs. by Act 16 of 2018, s. 15, for section 20 (w.e.f. 26-7-2018).

Questions on this section

2 questions in 3 of our papers cite Section 20. Try these from the free papers:

1. With reference to Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2022), consider the following statements: 1. The presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 arises only after the foundational facts of demand and acceptance are proved. 2. The presumption under section 20 is a presumption of law, which the court must draw once its conditions are met. 3. A presumption of fact may be drawn by the court even where the foundational facts have not been proved. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Practise questions on Anti-Corruption Laws