https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311943 A conflict in precedent is identified on whether demand and culpability in a corruption prosecution can be inferred from circumstantial evidence when the complainant is unavailable, hostile, or dead and direct proof is lacking. The discussion contrasts authorities requiring direct proof of demand with decisions accepting surrounding circumstances, panch witness testimony, recovery of tainted money, and the statutory presumption. The Court did not decide the merits and instead referred the question for consideration by a larger Bench, leaving the evidentiary standard unresolved pending that review. en-us Thu, 28 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:11:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311943 A conflict in precedent is identified on whether demand and culpability in a corruption prosecution can be inferred from circumstantial evidence when the complainant is unavailable, hostile, or dead and direct proof is lacking. The discussion contrasts authorities requiring direct proof of demand with decisions accepting surrounding circumstances, panch witness testimony, recovery of tainted money, and the statutory presumption. The Court did not decide the merits and instead referred the question for consideration by a larger Bench, leaving the evidentiary standard unresolved pending that review. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 28 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311943