https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775893 Leave to appeal was refused in a corruption prosecution because the evidence did not prove demand or acceptance of illegal gratification. Material inconsistencies existed between the complainant and shadow witness on the alleged demand, the meeting with the accused, and the alleged acceptance. The shadow witness did not corroborate the acceptance and said he was outside during the crucial interaction, while no call detail record supported the alleged telephonic conversation. The fact that the registration certificate had already been issued before the trap further weakened the prosecution case, and no patent perversity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence was shown. en-us Wed, 30 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Aug 2025 07:24:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775893 Leave to appeal was refused in a corruption prosecution because the evidence did not prove demand or acceptance of illegal gratification. Material inconsistencies existed between the complainant and shadow witness on the alleged demand, the meeting with the accused, and the alleged acceptance. The shadow witness did not corroborate the acceptance and said he was outside during the crucial interaction, while no call detail record supported the alleged telephonic conversation. The fact that the registration certificate had already been issued before the trap further weakened the prosecution case, and no patent perversity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence was shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 30 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775893