https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325816 Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification remained the decisive factor under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with the complainant, decoy witness and trap laying officer giving mutually corroborative evidence on the material facts. Scientific evidence also supported the prosecution case. Objections based on non-marking of the white cover and non-display of the micro chip were treated as non-fatal, because they were only evidentiary omissions and did not undermine the core proof of bribery. The conviction was therefore sustained on the basis that both demand and acceptance had been proved. en-us Thu, 11 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325816 Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification remained the decisive factor under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with the complainant, decoy witness and trap laying officer giving mutually corroborative evidence on the material facts. Scientific evidence also supported the prosecution case. Objections based on non-marking of the white cover and non-display of the micro chip were treated as non-fatal, because they were only evidentiary omissions and did not undermine the core proof of bribery. The conviction was therefore sustained on the basis that both demand and acceptance had been proved. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325816