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: (i) Whether conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could be sustained without proof of demand of illegal gratification. (ii) Whether conviction under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the presumption under Section 20 thereof could survive in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance.
Issue (i): Whether conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could be sustained without proof of demand of illegal gratification.
Analysis: Demand of illegal gratification is the foundation of the offence under Section 7. Mere recovery of currency notes, by itself, is insufficient unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution on the issue of demand, no other witness proved the alleged demand, and the contents of the initial complaint and the evidence of the panch witness were not enough to establish demand.
Conclusion: The conviction under Section 7 could not be sustained and was against the prosecution.
Issue (ii): Whether conviction under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the presumption under Section 20 thereof could survive in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance.
Analysis: The ingredients of Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) require proof of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position to obtain a pecuniary advantage, and in the absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification those ingredients were not established. The presumption under Section 20 arises only after proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, and such proof cannot be inferred where demand itself is not established. Since the primary facts necessary to invoke the presumption were absent, the conviction could not be upheld.
Conclusion: The conviction under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) read with Section 13(2), and the reliance on Section 20, were against the prosecution.
Final Conclusion: The appellant's conviction and sentence were set aside because the prosecution failed to prove the essential demand of illegal gratification, and the appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential, and statutory presumption of receipt cannot arise unless acceptance is first established on the basis of proved demand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
