https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175083 Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was essential to sustain conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; mere recovery of tainted currency was insufficient, but the trap evidence, shadow witness testimony, recovery from the accused, and other unshaken material established both demand and acceptance, so the statutory presumption under Section 20 operated and was not rebutted. The minimum sentence could not be reduced under Article 142 because the Court held that its equitable power cannot override an express statutory mandate prescribing minimum punishment, particularly in corruption offences. The convictions and sentences were therefore left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 29 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175083 Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was essential to sustain conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; mere recovery of tainted currency was insufficient, but the trap evidence, shadow witness testimony, recovery from the accused, and other unshaken material established both demand and acceptance, so the statutory presumption under Section 20 operated and was not rebutted. The minimum sentence could not be reduced under Article 142 because the Court held that its equitable power cannot override an express statutory mandate prescribing minimum punishment, particularly in corruption offences. The convictions and sentences were therefore left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175083