https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309580 In an Article 136 appeal, the Supreme Court declined to disturb concurrent findings of guilt in a corruption case because the complainant and supporting witness were found reliable, the marked currency notes were recovered from the accused, and the defence explanation was disbelieved. Minor inconsistencies, non-examination of some witnesses, and the fact that certain witnesses were police officials did not undermine the substantive proof of demand, acceptance, and recovery. In the absence of perversity, gross misreading of evidence, or manifest injustice, the Court held that special jurisdiction under Article 136 did not justify reappraisal of facts and upheld the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. en-us Tue, 05 Mar 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Sep 2023 18:03:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309580 In an Article 136 appeal, the Supreme Court declined to disturb concurrent findings of guilt in a corruption case because the complainant and supporting witness were found reliable, the marked currency notes were recovered from the accused, and the defence explanation was disbelieved. Minor inconsistencies, non-examination of some witnesses, and the fact that certain witnesses were police officials did not undermine the substantive proof of demand, acceptance, and recovery. In the absence of perversity, gross misreading of evidence, or manifest injustice, the Court held that special jurisdiction under Article 136 did not justify reappraisal of facts and upheld the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Mar 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309580