https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327611 Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof that a public servant abused his position and, by that abuse, obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. The prosecution failed to prove any abuse of office or any nexus between the appellant's official position and the foreign currency recovered from his possession. Mere possession of currency, without evidence satisfying the statutory ingredients, was insufficient to establish criminal misconduct, and the burden remained on the prosecution to prove guilt rather than rely on the appellant's silence. en-us Wed, 04 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 May 2016 00:54:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327611 Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof that a public servant abused his position and, by that abuse, obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. The prosecution failed to prove any abuse of office or any nexus between the appellant's official position and the foreign currency recovered from his possession. Mere possession of currency, without evidence satisfying the statutory ingredients, was insufficient to establish criminal misconduct, and the burden remained on the prosecution to prove guilt rather than rely on the appellant's silence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327611