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 the appellant's conviction for corruption offences could be sustained on the basis of evidence found unsafe and inconsistent in relation to a co-accused, and whether mere recovery of currency from the appellant, without reliable proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of bribe, was sufficient to establish guilt.
Analysis: The evidence of the principal witnesses was not consistent and had already been found unreliable in relation to one accused arising out of the same transaction. The Court held that where the witnesses' version regarding demand and acceptance of bribe is inseparable and their testimony is disbelieved on a material aspect, it cannot be selectively accepted against another accused on the same facts. The omission in the contemporaneous report to the police officer to mention any direct demand by the appellant also cast serious doubt on the prosecution case. The Court further held that recovery of money by itself, divorced from proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, does not establish the offence when the substantive evidence is unreliable and the appellant has denied the recovery.
Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction and sentence were unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for bribery cannot rest on mere recovery of money unless the prosecution proves, by reliable and consistent evidence, the demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
