Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 · Chapter V: Sanction for Prosecution and Other Miscellaneous Provisions
Section 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.]
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 14 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 20
-
Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi)
Issue arose whether the High Court was right in holding that a licensed stamp vendor falls within the ambit of a public servant for the purposes of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and whether the conviction of the…
- Subodh Anand v. C.B.I
- Subhash Chand v. C.B.I
- Ram Dutt Tyagi v. State Thr. C.B.I
- Arun Kumar Gurjar v. Central Buraeu of Investigation
- Yogendra Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- G.S.Raju v. CBI
- State (Gnct 0F Delhi) v. Netrapal Singh & Ors
-
P. Sarangapani (Dead) Thr. Lr Paka Saroja v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Whether the High Court was justified in confirming the conviction of appellant-accused no.1 u/s. 7 and s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Jai Narayan v. State
- Soundarajan v. State Rep. by the Insp. of Police
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
- Ram Kumar v. CBI
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Rajesh Gupta v. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation
- Guruviah v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police
- Mrs. Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
- V. Sejappa v. The State by Police Inspector Lokayukta, Chitradurga
- Indra Vijay Alok v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Venkateshwarlu
- Nayankumar Shivappa Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra
- Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab
- State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede
- Krishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan
- C.M. Girish Babu v. C.B.I. Cochin, High Court of Kerala
- V. Venkata Subbarao v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, A.P.
- Om Parkash v. State of Haryana
- Union of India Through Inspector, CBI v. Purnandu Biswas
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. R. Jeevaratnam
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. C. Uma Maheswara Rao and Anr.
- M.Narsinga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh