https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286150 Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, if proved by reliable direct or circumstantial evidence, trigger the statutory presumption of culpability under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which the accused must rebut with cogent material. The complainant's evidence on initial and telephonic demand was accepted, and the absence of an independent witness to the call was treated as immaterial because the demand was made directly to the complainant. Partial hostility by the complainant did not displace his earlier supporting version, and the shadow witness, recovery of tainted money, and positive hand-wash test were treated as corroborative. The presumption was not rebutted, and the acquittal was set aside. en-us Fri, 07 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Feb 2020 11:53:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286150 Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, if proved by reliable direct or circumstantial evidence, trigger the statutory presumption of culpability under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which the accused must rebut with cogent material. The complainant's evidence on initial and telephonic demand was accepted, and the absence of an independent witness to the call was treated as immaterial because the demand was made directly to the complainant. Partial hostility by the complainant did not displace his earlier supporting version, and the shadow witness, recovery of tainted money, and positive hand-wash test were treated as corroborative. The presumption was not rebutted, and the acquittal was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 07 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286150