Recovery of Tainted Money Not Enough for Conviction Without Proof of Demand for Bribe

Mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to trigger the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, unless the entire chain of events i.e., the demand, acceptance, and recovery is established, says the Supreme Court (SC) in State of Lokayuktha Police Davangere v C B Nagaraj [2025 INSC 736].

Perverse Order of a Court : SC Explains What it is

A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. Perverse can be defined as “turned the wrong way”; not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc, says the SC in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi vs Harish Ambalal Choksi [2024 INSC 910].

Complaints under DV Act Can Be Quashed u/s 482 CrPC

The Supreme Court (SC), in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v Vidhi Rawal [2025 INSC 734], states that High Courts can quash complaints filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), in exercise of their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now S.528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

A Woman Subjected to Domestic Violence alone Can Seek Remedies under PWDV Act

The Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act), particularly its Section 12, makes it very clear that an application for the reliefs provided under Sections 18 to 22 can be made only by an aggrieved person or on her behalf, says the High Court of Kerala in Shynil & Others v State of Kerala & Others [2024:KER:89997].

Entrustment of Gold by Wife to Husband in Matrimonial Cases

In matrimonial cases concerning the recovery of gold ornaments, the burden of initial proof lies with the wife to establish the entrustment of those assets to her husband. The initial onus of proof is on the wife to substantiate that the amount and the gold ornaments were misappropriated by the husband and his family, and that money was entrusted to them in trust at the time of marriage.

No Prior Govt Sanction Required for Inquiry or Investigation in Some Circumstances

The prior sanction of the Government, as mandated under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) in regard to recommendations made or decisions taken, would not be necessary when the act of the public servant is ex-facie criminal or constitutes an offence. This is what the Supreme Court (SC) states in the judgement in Shankara Bhat and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2021(5) KHC 248].

Prior Sanction Required for Prosecution of Public Servants When Alleged Acts Have Nexus with Official Functions

In G.C. Manjunath v. Seetaram [2025 INSC 439], the Supreme Court held that prior government sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is required before prosecuting a public servant, even when the alleged acts exceed official duties, provided such acts are reasonably connected with the discharge of official functions.