https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156356 In a corruption prosecution, mere recovery of money from a public servant is insufficient; the prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant promptly explained that the amount was received towards temple lease arrears, and the record supported that explanation through admitted arrears, prior hostility between the parties, and the absence of clear proof of bribe demand. On appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where guilt is the sole possible conclusion. As two views were reasonably open on the evidence, the trial court's finding that the charge was not proved was not perverse, and the conviction could not stand. en-us Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jul 2016 10:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156356 In a corruption prosecution, mere recovery of money from a public servant is insufficient; the prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant promptly explained that the amount was received towards temple lease arrears, and the record supported that explanation through admitted arrears, prior hostility between the parties, and the absence of clear proof of bribe demand. On appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where guilt is the sole possible conclusion. As two views were reasonably open on the evidence, the trial court's finding that the charge was not proved was not perverse, and the conviction could not stand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156356