https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176218 A precedent cannot be applied mechanically: the Court held that the High Court erred in treating an earlier ruling as controlling without first testing whether the facts were truly comparable. Where the prosecution evidence showed demand of illegal gratification, part payment, acceptance of the balance, recovery of tainted currency, and corroborative sodium carbonate test results, failure to prove one aspect of the narrative did not by itself require acquittal. The trial court's conviction and sentence were restored, and the acquittal set aside. en-us Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176218 A precedent cannot be applied mechanically: the Court held that the High Court erred in treating an earlier ruling as controlling without first testing whether the facts were truly comparable. Where the prosecution evidence showed demand of illegal gratification, part payment, acceptance of the balance, recovery of tainted currency, and corroborative sodium carbonate test results, failure to prove one aspect of the narrative did not by itself require acquittal. The trial court's conviction and sentence were restored, and the acquittal set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176218