https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299719 The article discusses the Supreme Court's reasoning on conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, focusing on whether the public servant abused his position to obtain pecuniary advantage under Section 13(1)(d)(ii). It notes the Court's view that Ex.P/16(a) was only a letter stating valuation cost, not a stage certificate evidencing 25% completion, and that no causal link was shown between that letter and the fund disbursement. The Court also examined the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana guidelines and found the advance payments to the Panchayat to be within the permitted limit. On that basis, the prosecution was found not to have proved the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. en-us Tue, 10 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Dec 2021 06:27:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299719 The article discusses the Supreme Court's reasoning on conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, focusing on whether the public servant abused his position to obtain pecuniary advantage under Section 13(1)(d)(ii). It notes the Court's view that Ex.P/16(a) was only a letter stating valuation cost, not a stage certificate evidencing 25% completion, and that no causal link was shown between that letter and the fund disbursement. The Court also examined the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana guidelines and found the advance payments to the Panchayat to be within the permitted limit. On that basis, the prosecution was found not to have proved the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299719