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 prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt under section 7 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (ii) Whether the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by establishing a probable defence version. (iii) Whether the sanction for prosecution under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was valid and granted by a competent authority.
Issue (i): Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt under section 7 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Analysis: Proof of demand is an indispensable ingredient for offences under section 7 and for the offence under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2). Mere recovery of money, without reliable proof of demand, is insufficient. The evidence of the complainant was found inconsistent and unreliable, and the material on record did not satisfactorily establish a clear prior demand or a convincing demand on the date of trap. The circumstances relating to the pending work and the alleged transaction did not conclusively support the prosecution case.
Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove demand and conscious acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue (ii): Whether the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by establishing a probable defence version.
Analysis: The accused was required only to rebut the presumption on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The defence version that the money was connected with a loan repayment dispute had support from the surrounding circumstances and from the evidence touching the prior dispute. In the absence of reliable proof of demand, the presumption could not be sustained. The defence explanation was found sufficiently probable to displace the statutory presumption.
Conclusion: The presumption under section 20 stood rebutted in favour of the accused.
Issue (iii): Whether the sanction for prosecution under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was valid and granted by a competent authority.
Analysis: A valid sanction requires competence of the sanctioning authority and application of mind to the materials placed before it. The sanctioning order was found to be mechanically drawn, without adequate indication of consideration of the relevant materials or satisfaction as to a prima facie case. The evidence also created doubt regarding the competence of the authority which granted sanction.
Conclusion: The sanction order was held to be defective and not validly granted by a competent authority.
Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence could not be sustained, and the accused was entitled to acquittal on all charges.
Ratio Decidendi: For offences under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, proof of demand is essential, the presumption under section 20 is rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities, and a prosecution cannot be sustained on an invalid sanction lacking application of mind by a competent authority.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
