Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage
Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage. 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 contr The Act came into force on 09 Sep 1988.
1[20. Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage.-- 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.]
Section 20, The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act 49 of 1988).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
T. Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Following Narsinga Rao, PC Act presumption (s.20 / analogous s.4 of 1947 Act) is obligatory once acceptance of gratification is proved; recovery and surrounding circumstances can establish acceptance even if complainant partially resiles; rebuttal requires proof, not a mere belated explanation (e.g. "advance tax"). DATE VERIFIED Judgment of Main Case 2004-01-12 (order-3.pdf).
On this section: s.20 — Presumption on acceptance of gratification; trap recovery / hostile complainant
-
M. Narsinga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
PC Act s.20 legal (shall-presume) presumption that gratification was accepted as motive/reward arises once acceptance of gratification is proved; that primary fact may be proved by circumstantial/inferential evidence, not only direct testimony — including when trap witnesses turn hostile. DATE VERIFIED Judgment of Main Case 2000-12-12 (order-1.pdf).
On this section: s.20 — Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage; circumstantial proof of acceptance
-
Chaitanya Prakash Audichya vs Cbi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a public servant is shown to have demanded and accepted illegal gratification from a citizen in exchange for performing or delaying an official duty, and the demand and acceptance are established through consistent testimony of credible independent witnesses corroborated by physical evidence such as tainted currency and chemical tests, the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is sustainable despite technical procedural objections regarding the timing of FIR registration and panch witness requisition when circumstances of urgency and actual expectation of the visit existed. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act operates independently to reinforce conviction when direct evidence of demand and acceptance is robust. Alleged enmity between the complainant and the accused official becomes immaterial once the misconduct is proved through credible evidence.
On this section: Presumption regarding possession of gratification - presumption that public servant obtaining possession/control of property committed offence; held applicable and unrebutted in this case
-
Narayana vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court, while generally restricting interference with acquittals to cases of substantial and compelling reasons, retains the inherent power to review evidence and determine whether a trial court's acquittal was justified on the evidence. Where the trial court's acquittal is completely without basis, interference is called for. In corruption cases involving acceptance of gratification by a public servant, credible direct evidence from multiple witnesses regarding the demand and recovery of marked currency, combined with the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, constitutes sufficient proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The hostile testimony of some independent witnesses does not necessarily negate the credibility of other unchallenged witnesses whose evidence remains consistent. Minor discrepancies in witness accounts recorded over extended periods can be reasonably explained by the time lapse and do not undermine the core prosecution narrative.
On this section: Presumption that public servant who accepts gratification did so as motive or reward for exercise of function; court applied this presumption based on recovery of tainted money
-
Banarsi Dass vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecution under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, mere recovery of tainted money from the accused, even if properly conducted and documented through recovery memo with attesting witnesses, cannot sustain conviction without substantive evidence proving the essential ingredients of 'demand' by the public servant and 'voluntary acceptance' by him of such gratification as motive or reward for doing an official act. When the eyewitnesses to the demand and acceptance (shadow witnesses) turn hostile and deny or substantially recant their police statements despite confrontation, and no corroborating evidence from independent witnesses to the actual transaction exists, the prosecution fails to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal on the technical ground of hostile witnesses, even if the recovery itself is valid and unimpeached.
On this section: Provides a rebuttable presumption when public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration. The Court noted this presumption was absent in the 1947 Act applicable to this case, yet it followed the same strict evidentiary principles even in the 1988 Act context through cited precedents.
-
Surinder Kaur vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials, particularly where charges rest on circumstantial evidence and expert opinion (such as forensic handwriting analysis), the court must distinguish between proof beyond reasonable doubt and mere suspicion or probability. While hospital records showing interpolations and missing pages may indicate tampering, and while one individual's (Dr. Ravinder Kaur's) direct involvement in issuing false admission slips may be established through credible witness testimony, the involvement of other staff members in a conspiracy to forge records cannot be inferred from handwriting matches alone without clinching evidence of their guilty mind and knowledge of the conspiracy. The standard of proof required in criminal law is significantly higher than establishing suspicion; each accused must be judged on individual evidence establishing their participation in the alleged conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. Further, charges under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requiring abuse of official position for illegal gratification cannot be sustained without explicit evidence of demand and acceptance of such gratification.
On this section: Presumption regarding public servants - Court held this presumption cannot be applied to Section 13(1)(d) charges without evidence of actual illegal gratification.
-
Jasbir Kaur vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials, the standard of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt, not merely a preponderance of probabilities. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction cannot be based on handwriting expert evidence alone without clinching corroborating evidence of guilty mind and direct participation in the criminal act. A public servant's conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of taking or obtaining pecuniary advantage or illicit benefit, which cannot be presumed without explicit evidence. Direct evidence of participation and guilty mind is essential to convict co-accused in conspiracy cases, especially where circumstantial evidence does not establish their individual culpability beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Presumption provision - Court held this presumption was wrongly invoked and does not apply to Section 13(1)(d) without proof of illicit advantage
-
Balwinder Kaur vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal prosecution, proof beyond reasonable doubt is the required standard, not mere suspicion or preponderance of probabilities. Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt only when the circumstances are of clinching nature and directly point to guilt. Handwriting expert analysis has corroborative value but cannot be the sole basis for conviction. Each accused must have their individual culpability established beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion arising from involvement in conspiracy does not warrant conviction. For conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, pecuniary advantage is an essential ingredient and must be established. Inquiry reports containing hearsay evidence are not sufficient for conviction unless the persons whose version formed the basis of the inquiry are examined and cross-examined.
On this section: Presumption regarding documents kept by public servants; Court held this presumption was wrongly invoked as it does not apply to Section 13(1)(d)
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 20
What have the courts held on Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
T. Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh (12 Jan 2004) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.20 — Presumption on acceptance of gratification; trap recovery / hostile complainant. Another 7 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2000 to 2015.
How do I find court cases under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: PC Act 20, section 20 PC Act, section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 8 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with T. Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh (12 Jan 2004).
What should I read with Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 7 (Offence relating to public servant being bribed), section 11 (Public servant obtaining undue advantage, without consideration from person concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant), so none of them can safely be read on its own.
When did Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act come into force?
Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, cited as PC Act 20, came into force on 09 Sep 1988, having been enacted on 09 Sep 1988. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties1666 words
- 19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution869 words
- 2. Definitions716 words
- 9. Offence relating to bribing a public servant by a commercial organisation532 words
- 6. Power to try summarily374 words
- 5. Procedure and powers of special Judge368 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.