https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169953 Permission under section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was treated as covering the entire investigation, including trap proceedings and subsequent verification steps, and an irregularity in investigation did not vitiate the trial absent prejudice. The statutory presumption under section 4 arose once receipt of gratification other than legal remuneration was shown, and the accused had to rebut it by ative proof on a preponderance of probability, not by a merely plausible explanation. A prosecution under section 6(1) required sanction from the authority competent to remove the public servant from office; where such competence was not proved, the sanction was invalid and the conviction could not stand. en-us Tue, 26 Mar 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 May 2015 16:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169953 Permission under section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was treated as covering the entire investigation, including trap proceedings and subsequent verification steps, and an irregularity in investigation did not vitiate the trial absent prejudice. The statutory presumption under section 4 arose once receipt of gratification other than legal remuneration was shown, and the accused had to rebut it by ative proof on a preponderance of probability, not by a merely plausible explanation. A prosecution under section 6(1) required sanction from the authority competent to remove the public servant from office; where such competence was not proved, the sanction was invalid and the conviction could not stand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Mar 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169953