Below are 20 Judiciary Mainsโready model answers on the , written in exam-scoring format with authoritative Supreme Court case citations.
Each answer is structured as Intro โ Law โ Case Law โ Conclusion, exactly how evaluators expect.
1. Whether mere recovery of bribe money is sufficient for conviction?
Model Answer
Mere recovery of bribe money is not sufficient to sustain conviction under the PC Act. The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
In P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. (2015), the Supreme Court held that demand of bribe is sine qua non for constituting an offence under Section 7. Recovery is only a corroborative circumstance.
Similarly, in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. (2014), it was held that without proof of demand, presumption under Section 20 cannot be invoked.
Conclusion:
Conviction cannot be based solely on recovery; proof of demand is indispensable.
2. Explain the concept of โdemandโ in corruption cases.
Model Answer
Demand refers to the conscious solicitation of undue advantage by a public servant in return for official favour.
In Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), the Supreme Court clarified that demand may be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence, including conduct and electronic evidence.
However, demand cannot be presumed merely from recovery.
Conclusion:
Demand is the foundation of corruption offences and must be affirmatively proved.
3. Discuss the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act.
Model Answer
Section 20 creates a statutory presumption that when a public servant accepts undue advantage, it is for corrupt motive.
In M. Narasinga Rao v. State of A.P. (2001), the Court held that the presumption is mandatory but rebuttable, and the accused may rebut it on preponderance of probability.
Presumption arises only after proof of demand and acceptance.
Conclusion:
Section 20 eases prosecutionโs burden but does not dispense with proof of demand.
4. Whether defective sanction vitiates the trial?
Model Answer
Defective sanction does not automatically vitiate the trial unless failure of justice is shown.
In Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi (2016), the Supreme Court held that sanction is a procedural safeguard, not a jurisdictional bar.
The accused must show actual prejudice.
Conclusion:
Defect in sanction is curable unless it causes miscarriage of justice.
5. Importance of sanction for prosecution under Section 19.
Model Answer
Sanction under Section 19 is intended to protect honest officers from frivolous prosecution.
In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (2012), the Court held that sanction must be granted within a reasonable time, normally three months.
Delay defeats the purpose of the Act.
Conclusion:
Sanction is a shield for honesty, not a cover for corruption.
6. Evidentiary value of trap witnesses.
Model Answer
Trap witnesses are not accomplices and their testimony is admissible.
In State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma (2013), the Court held that trap witnessesโ evidence requires careful scrutiny, not outright rejection.
Conclusion:
Conviction can be based on trap witness testimony if credible.
7. Whether phenolphthalein test alone proves guilt?
Model Answer
Phenolphthalein test only establishes handling of tainted money, not demand.
In N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021), conviction was set aside due to absence of proof of demand despite positive chemical test.
Conclusion:
Chemical test is corroborative, not substantive proof.
8. Can demand be proved by circumstantial evidence?
Model Answer
Yes. Demand need not always be proved by direct oral evidence.
In Neeraj Dutta (2023), the Supreme Court held that demand can be inferred from circumstances, conduct, and surrounding facts.
Conclusion:
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient if it forms a complete chain.
9. Defence that bribe money was taken as loan.
Model Answer
Such defence must be probable and believable.
In C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI (2009), the Court held that mere assertion of loan is insufficient without supporting material.
Conclusion:
Burden lies on accused to establish the defence.
10. Whether shadow witness turning hostile is fatal?
Model Answer
No. Prosecution does not fail if other evidence proves demand.
In V. Sejappa v. State (2016), conviction was upheld despite hostile shadow witness.
Conclusion:
Totality of evidence must be considered.
11. Who is a โpublic servantโ under the PC Act?
Model Answer
Section 2(c) defines public servant broadly.
In Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (2007), the Court held that the definition must be interpreted liberally to curb corruption.
Conclusion:
Wide interpretation prevents evasion of liability.
12. Whether bribe giver is liable under the Act?
Model Answer
Yes, under Section 8, unless bribe is given under compulsion.
In State of A.P. v. P. Venkateshwarlu (2015), bribe giver was protected as he acted under coercion.
Conclusion:
Law encourages reporting of corruption.
13. Whether acceptance without demand constitutes offence?
Model Answer
No. Acceptance must follow demand.
In B. Jayaraj (2014), acceptance without proof of demand was held insufficient.
Conclusion:
Demand is the root of the offence.
14. Whether delay in sanction invalidates prosecution?
Model Answer
Delay alone does not invalidate sanction.
In Subramanian Swamy (2012), delay was deprecated but not made fatal unless prejudice shown.
Conclusion:
Reasonableness of delay is the test.
15. Nature of burden of proof on accused.
Model Answer
Accused need not prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
In M. Narasinga Rao (2001), rebuttal on preponderance of probability was held sufficient.
Conclusion:
Lower standard applies to accused.
16. Difference between recovery and acceptance.
Model Answer
Recovery proves possession; acceptance proves voluntary receipt.
In P. Satyanarayana Murthy (2015), recovery alone was held insufficient.
Conclusion:
Acceptance must be conscious and voluntary.
17. Whether electronic evidence can prove demand?
Model Answer
Yes, if admissible and reliable.
In Neeraj Dutta (2023), electronic evidence was recognized as valid proof of demand.
Conclusion:
Modern evidence strengthens anti-corruption law.
18. Object of the PC Act.
Model Answer
The Act aims to curb corruption and ensure integrity in public administration.
In Subramanian Swamy (2012), the Court emphasized purposive interpretation.
Conclusion:
Law must be interpreted to advance its object.
19. Whether Special Judge can take cognizance directly?
Model Answer
Yes.
In A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988), it was held that Special Judge can take cognizance without committal.
Conclusion:
Ensures speedy trial.
20. Whether presumption under Section 20 is automatic?
Model Answer
No. Presumption arises only after proof of demand and acceptance.
In B. Jayaraj (2014), automatic presumption was rejected.
Conclusion:
Section 20 is conditional, not mechanical.
Examinerโs Gold Formula
Demand โ Acceptance โ Presumption โ Rebuttal
Read More
- MCQs on Prevention of Curruption Act 1988
- Question Bank on Prevention of Corruption ACT 1988
- Notes on Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
- Important Cases on Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
- 20 Case Based Model Answer on Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
- Definition of Public Servant and Public Duty under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988