https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311920 Proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential in corruption prosecutions, and mere recovery of tainted currency notes is not enough by itself. Where the complainant turns hostile, retracts the allegation and the remaining evidence does not reliably establish demand or acceptance, the statutory presumption under Section 20 cannot be invoked. The presumption arises only after acceptance of illegal gratification is first proved, and acceptance cannot be inferred without proof of demand. In the stated case, the prosecution failed to establish these foundational facts, so the conviction and sentence were set aside and the accused was acquitted. en-us Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 21 Jan 2024 20:39:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311920 Proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential in corruption prosecutions, and mere recovery of tainted currency notes is not enough by itself. Where the complainant turns hostile, retracts the allegation and the remaining evidence does not reliably establish demand or acceptance, the statutory presumption under Section 20 cannot be invoked. The presumption arises only after acceptance of illegal gratification is first proved, and acceptance cannot be inferred without proof of demand. In the stated case, the prosecution failed to establish these foundational facts, so the conviction and sentence were set aside and the accused was acquitted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311920