https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439113 In a corruption prosecution under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court found the evidence insufficient because a crucial slip said to contain the accused's name and mobile number was not produced, the main identifying witness could not reliably identify the accused after a long lapse of time, independent seizure witnesses were not examined, and no call detail records corroborated the alleged contact. The Court also treated seizure and enquiry before FIR registration as a serious procedural irregularity. With two possible views on who initiated the demand and material suppression creating substantial doubt, the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction and sentence were set aside with the accused acquitted. en-us Tue, 06 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Jun 2023 14:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439113 In a corruption prosecution under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court found the evidence insufficient because a crucial slip said to contain the accused's name and mobile number was not produced, the main identifying witness could not reliably identify the accused after a long lapse of time, independent seizure witnesses were not examined, and no call detail records corroborated the alleged contact. The Court also treated seizure and enquiry before FIR registration as a serious procedural irregularity. With two possible views on who initiated the demand and material suppression creating substantial doubt, the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction and sentence were set aside with the accused acquitted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 06 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439113