https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430132 Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to sustain a corruption conviction, and once those facts are established the statutory presumption operates unless rebutted by the accused. The court accepted the complainant and trap witnesses as proving demand, acceptance and recovery of tainted currency, and rejected objections based on the accused's work allotment, the conduct of the preliminary enquiry, and the absence of local witnesses. It held that a preliminary enquiry is not a substantive stage of proof and that search of a person does not require local witnesses in the same manner as a closed-place search. The conviction was affirmed, while the sentence was modified. en-us Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Nov 2022 10:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430132 Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to sustain a corruption conviction, and once those facts are established the statutory presumption operates unless rebutted by the accused. The court accepted the complainant and trap witnesses as proving demand, acceptance and recovery of tainted currency, and rejected objections based on the accused's work allotment, the conduct of the preliminary enquiry, and the absence of local witnesses. It held that a preliminary enquiry is not a substantive stage of proof and that search of a person does not require local witnesses in the same manner as a closed-place search. The conviction was affirmed, while the sentence was modified. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430132