https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175059 Proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification was found lacking, so the corruption conviction could not stand. The complainant was not examined, no satisfactory reason was given for that omission, and the remaining evidence did not establish demand. Trap and recovery evidence was treated as unreliable, and mere recovery of currency notes was held insufficient without credible proof of demand and acceptance. The presumption of corruption was also found inapplicable on the facts because the alleged gratification was trivial and the evidence did not justify an inference of guilt. The appellant was therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt. en-us Tue, 26 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 13:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175059 Proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification was found lacking, so the corruption conviction could not stand. The complainant was not examined, no satisfactory reason was given for that omission, and the remaining evidence did not establish demand. Trap and recovery evidence was treated as unreliable, and mere recovery of currency notes was held insufficient without credible proof of demand and acceptance. The presumption of corruption was also found inapplicable on the facts because the alleged gratification was trivial and the evidence did not justify an inference of guilt. The appellant was therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175059