https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283614 In prosecutions under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential, and mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient without reliable proof of demand and voluntary acceptance. The presumption under Section 20 can arise only after acceptance is proved, and acceptance itself must be supported by clear evidence of demand. As the accompanying witness did not give legally acceptable evidence of demand and the complainant did not testify directly, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was therefore unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. en-us Mon, 14 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Oct 2019 13:00:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283614 In prosecutions under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential, and mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient without reliable proof of demand and voluntary acceptance. The presumption under Section 20 can arise only after acceptance is proved, and acceptance itself must be supported by clear evidence of demand. As the accompanying witness did not give legally acceptable evidence of demand and the complainant did not testify directly, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was therefore unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 14 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283614