https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299224 Omission to specify the precise sub-clause or every ingredient of the offence in the charge did not vitiate the trial where the accused knew the case and had a fair opportunity to defend. For Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, mens rea was not an essential ingredient; liability arose where a public servant's decision conferred pecuniary advantage without public interest and reflected manifest disregard of public interest. The evidence supported the finding that the crystal version was inferior and that restoring price parity, despite contrary technical opinion and without new material, was unreasonable and not in public interest. Convictions for corruption were sustained against the appellants, but the conspiracy conviction against the minister was set aside for want of proof of agreement. en-us Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Dec 2021 11:12:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299224 Omission to specify the precise sub-clause or every ingredient of the offence in the charge did not vitiate the trial where the accused knew the case and had a fair opportunity to defend. For Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, mens rea was not an essential ingredient; liability arose where a public servant's decision conferred pecuniary advantage without public interest and reflected manifest disregard of public interest. The evidence supported the finding that the crystal version was inferior and that restoring price parity, despite contrary technical opinion and without new material, was unreasonable and not in public interest. Convictions for corruption were sustained against the appellants, but the conspiracy conviction against the minister was set aside for want of proof of agreement. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299224