Abstract:

Corruption continues to pose a serious challenge to governance and public accountability in India. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), enacted to combat corruption among public servants, represents a significant legislative effort to address this issue. However, the structure of offences under the Act departs from traditional principles of criminal law, particularly the doctrines of actus reus and Mens Rea.

This article examines how these foundational principles operate within the framework of the PCA. It focuses on the judicial insistence on proof of “demand” and “acceptance” as essential elements of the offence, while also analyzing the role of statutory presumptions especially under Section 20 in reshaping the concept of Mens Rea. By engaging with recent judicial developments, including the Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), the article highlights both clarity and inconsistency in the application of these doctrines.

The study argues that while departures from classical criminal law principles are justified in the context of corruption offences, the current framework requires greater doctrinal consistency and procedural balance. It concludes by suggesting reforms aimed at strengthening evidentiary standards and ensuring fairness in prosecution.

Keywords:

Prevention of Corruption Act, Actus Reus, Mens Rea, Demand and Acceptance, Section 20.

Aim/Objectives

Methods