https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172703 Interference with an acquittal in a corruption case is confined to situations where the evidence leaves only one possible view; if two reasonable views exist, the view favouring the accused must prevail. In a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 arises only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts of demand and acceptance. Where the independent evidence on demand is unavailable or unreliable and the trap circumstances create serious doubt, the acquittal is not treated as perverse and is not disturbed. en-us Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Nov 2015 08:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172703 Interference with an acquittal in a corruption case is confined to situations where the evidence leaves only one possible view; if two reasonable views exist, the view favouring the accused must prevail. In a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 arises only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts of demand and acceptance. Where the independent evidence on demand is unavailable or unreliable and the trap circumstances create serious doubt, the acquittal is not treated as perverse and is not disturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172703