https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97598 Criminal-liability analysis distinguishes failure to prove conspiracy from proof of a substantive bribery offence: the court upheld that no prior meeting of minds established Section 120B criminal conspiracy, but reinstated conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demand and acceptance against the second accused. The conviction rested on trap proceedings corroborated by trap officers, independent witnesses, contemporaneous pre-trap documentation and identification of marked notes; electronic voice recordings were excluded. The court emphasised that a co-accused's statement alone cannot substitute for independent proof to fasten guilt on another accused. en-us Thu, 12 Mar 2026 08:33:50 +0530 Thu, 12 Mar 2026 08:33:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97598 Criminal-liability analysis distinguishes failure to prove conspiracy from proof of a substantive bribery offence: the court upheld that no prior meeting of minds established Section 120B criminal conspiracy, but reinstated conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demand and acceptance against the second accused. The conviction rested on trap proceedings corroborated by trap officers, independent witnesses, contemporaneous pre-trap documentation and identification of marked notes; electronic voice recordings were excluded. The court emphasised that a co-accused's statement alone cannot substitute for independent proof to fasten guilt on another accused. Highlights Indian Laws Thu, 12 Mar 2026 08:33:50 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97598