A five-judge Constitution Bench resolved a long-running split on whether the demand of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be proved without the complainant's direct testimony. When the complainant dies or turns hostile, the Court held, demand and acceptance may be established by inference from other evidence adduced by the prosecution.
On 11 October 2022 a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court answered two questions on the sanction to prosecute a public servant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. It held that the three-month period for deciding a sanction request — extendable by one month where legal consultation is required — is mandatory, yet that a failure to sanction in time does not vitiate or quash the prosecution. The consequence of delay is the accountability of the defaulting officer, subject to judicial review and CVC action, not the acquittal of the accused.