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 conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether the absence of any pending work on the date of trap negatived the offence.
Analysis: The evidence was assessed against the settled requirement that proof of demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under the corruption provisions. The Court found the complainant's version on repeated telephone demands unsupported by the complaint and by the other witnesses, and held that the call-detail material did not reliably establish any demand by the accused. The Court also noted that the cheque amounts had already been issued and encashed before the complaint and trap, so no work of the complainant remained pending with the accused on the relevant dates. In these circumstances, mere recovery of tainted money and phenolphthalein test results were held insufficient to sustain the conviction in the absence of reliable proof of demand and a live official work context.
Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients for conviction, and the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was held unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to acquittal, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for corruption, demand of illegal gratification must be proved by reliable evidence, and mere recovery of tainted money without proof of demand and without a pending official work does not sustain conviction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
