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 the conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was sustainable on the evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. (ii) Whether the sanction for prosecution was vitiated for want of adequate material before the sanctioning authority.
Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was sustainable on the evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
Analysis: The record showed that the accused was caught red handed while demanding and accepting bribe money in a trap arranged on the basis of a written complaint. The Court found support for the prosecution case in the surrounding circumstances, including the pre-arranged demand, acceptance of money, trap proceedings, recovery, and the evidence indicating a course of conduct of demanding illegal gratification from subscribers seeking telephone connections.
Conclusion: The conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether the sanction for prosecution was vitiated for want of adequate material before the sanctioning authority.
Analysis: The Court held that it could not examine the adequacy or inadequacy of the material placed before the sanctioning authority or sit in appeal over the sanction order. The sanction order disclosed that the available materials were placed before the competent authority and considered in detail, and the mere fact that some materials were not ultimately proved did not invalidate the sanction.
Conclusion: The sanction for prosecution was held to be valid and not vitiated.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits and the conviction and sentence were maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: In a corruption prosecution, a sanction order is not vitiated merely because the Court considers some of the material before the sanctioning authority insufficient or unproved, and concurrent findings based on proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification will not be disturbed absent legal infirmity.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
