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 prosecution proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification so as to sustain the appellant's conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and whether the statutory presumption stood rebutted on the evidence.
Analysis: The evidence of the complainant did not support the prosecution version of demand by the appellant. The official witness did not hear any demand of gratification and the contemporaneous post-trap mahazar did not record such demand. Mere recovery of tainted currency notes was held insufficient, by itself, to establish guilt in the absence of reliable proof that the amount was accepted as bribe. The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is rebuttable, and the appellant's explanation that he received the money under the belief that it represented repayment of a loan was accepted on the test of preponderance of probability.
Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant received the amount as gratification, and the conviction could not be sustained.
Final Conclusion: The appellant's conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: In a corruption prosecution, proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of gratification is essential, and mere recovery of tainted money does not sustain conviction where the accused rebuts the presumption under Section 20 on a preponderance of probability.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
