https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180157 Demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 arises only after foundational facts of acceptance or agreement to accept are proved. Mere recovery of tainted money, without reliable proof of demand and conscious acceptance, is insufficient; on the facts, serious doubt remained because of the complainant's evidence, a retraction letter, and the circumstances of recovery. In appeals against acquittal, interference is limited by the presumption of innocence and the need to respect a reasonable trial court view; the appellate court should not disturb acquittal where two views are possible. The conviction and sentence were set aside and the acquittal restored. en-us Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Aug 2016 13:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180157 Demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 arises only after foundational facts of acceptance or agreement to accept are proved. Mere recovery of tainted money, without reliable proof of demand and conscious acceptance, is insufficient; on the facts, serious doubt remained because of the complainant's evidence, a retraction letter, and the circumstances of recovery. In appeals against acquittal, interference is limited by the presumption of innocence and the need to respect a reasonable trial court view; the appellate court should not disturb acquittal where two views are possible. The conviction and sentence were set aside and the acquittal restored. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180157