https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430260 Proof of demand is essential for offences under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and mere recovery of money is insufficient without reliable evidence of prior demand and conscious acceptance. The complainant's evidence was inconsistent, so the prosecution failed to establish demand beyond reasonable doubt. The accused rebutted the section 20 presumption on a preponderance of probabilities by advancing a probable loan-repayment explanation supported by surrounding circumstances. The sanction for prosecution under section 19 was also found defective because it was mechanically issued without adequate application of mind and raised doubt as to the authority's competence. The conviction and sentence could not be sustained. en-us Wed, 09 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Nov 2022 17:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430260 Proof of demand is essential for offences under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and mere recovery of money is insufficient without reliable evidence of prior demand and conscious acceptance. The complainant's evidence was inconsistent, so the prosecution failed to establish demand beyond reasonable doubt. The accused rebutted the section 20 presumption on a preponderance of probabilities by advancing a probable loan-repayment explanation supported by surrounding circumstances. The sanction for prosecution under section 19 was also found defective because it was mechanically issued without adequate application of mind and raised doubt as to the authority's competence. The conviction and sentence could not be sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430260