https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468998 Conviction for conspiracy and corruption offences could not stand where the prosecution failed to prove demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification with the certainty required in law. The court reiterated that proof of demand is the gravamen of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and that mere recovery of tainted currency, without reliable evidence of demand, is insufficient to establish guilt. In the absence of trustworthy proof of demand, the statutory presumption could not be invoked to sustain the conviction, and the accused were entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt. en-us Mon, 27 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 May 2026 18:18:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468998 Conviction for conspiracy and corruption offences could not stand where the prosecution failed to prove demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification with the certainty required in law. The court reiterated that proof of demand is the gravamen of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and that mere recovery of tainted currency, without reliable evidence of demand, is insufficient to establish guilt. In the absence of trustworthy proof of demand, the statutory presumption could not be invoked to sustain the conviction, and the accused were entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468998