https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312037 The SC noted a conflict between earlier three-judge bench rulings on whether culpability under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be inferred in the absence of the complainant's evidence or other direct primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification. The issue concerned the evidentiary standard for proving offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) when primary testimony is unavailable. Because the competing precedents required clarification by a bench of appropriate strength, the Court referred the question of law to a larger bench for decision. en-us Tue, 27 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:57:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312037 The SC noted a conflict between earlier three-judge bench rulings on whether culpability under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be inferred in the absence of the complainant's evidence or other direct primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification. The issue concerned the evidentiary standard for proving offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) when primary testimony is unavailable. Because the competing precedents required clarification by a bench of appropriate strength, the Court referred the question of law to a larger bench for decision. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312037