https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311940 In a corruption prosecution, the Supreme Court held that proof of mere recovery is insufficient by itself, but demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were established here through eyewitness, trap witness and phenolphthalein evidence. Once demand and acceptance were proved, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act arose, and the accused failed to rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities with reliable direct or circumstantial evidence. The alibi and false-implication defence were found unsupported. The acquittal was set aside and the conviction and sentence were restored. en-us Wed, 06 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:11:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311940 In a corruption prosecution, the Supreme Court held that proof of mere recovery is insufficient by itself, but demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were established here through eyewitness, trap witness and phenolphthalein evidence. Once demand and acceptance were proved, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act arose, and the accused failed to rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities with reliable direct or circumstantial evidence. The alibi and false-implication defence were found unsupported. The acquittal was set aside and the conviction and sentence were restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311940