https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312374 For criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, proof of demand of illegal gratification is not indispensable where the charge is founded on abuse of position or obtaining a pecuniary advantage without public interest; the three limbs of the provision operate independently. The 2018 amendment was treated as a substitution of the earlier scheme, but it did not retrospectively wipe out liabilities already incurred under the unamended law, absent clear legislative intent. The request to stay the conviction pending appeal was also rejected because such relief is exceptional and was not justified on the facts presented. en-us Fri, 22 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Feb 2024 19:49:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312374 For criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, proof of demand of illegal gratification is not indispensable where the charge is founded on abuse of position or obtaining a pecuniary advantage without public interest; the three limbs of the provision operate independently. The 2018 amendment was treated as a substitution of the earlier scheme, but it did not retrospectively wipe out liabilities already incurred under the unamended law, absent clear legislative intent. The request to stay the conviction pending appeal was also rejected because such relief is exceptional and was not justified on the facts presented. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312374