TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether conviction under Section 13(1)(d)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could be sustained in the absence of proof that the accused obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means.
Analysis: For an offence under Section 13(1)(d), the prosecution must establish more than receipt of money. The statutory language emphasises that the public servant must have obtained for himself or for another person a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means, by abusing his position as a public servant, or without public interest. The Court distinguished this provision from Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) and (b), where the emphasis is on acceptance, and held that Section 13(1)(d) requires proof of obtainment. The statutory presumption under Section 20 is not available for an offence under Section 13(1)(d). On the evidence, the complainant did not support the prosecution on demand or acceptance, and the panch witness did not speak to any demand by the accused. The evidence did not establish that the accused demanded or obtained the amount.
Conclusion: The conviction under Section 13(1)(d)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was unsustainable and was set aside, with acquittal on that count.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
