Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 20, 13(1)(d), 13(2) -- Illegal gratification - Demand of Rs.25/- - Court is not bound to draw a presumption u/s 20 of the At where the alleged gratification is too trivial...........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 20 -- Recovery of tainted money - There is statutory presumption against accused - However, accused can rebut such presumption by leading evidence or from evidence of prosecution witnesses...........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 20, 13(2), 13(1)(d), 7, 12 -- Illegal gratification - Once it is proved that money was demanded as bribe and same was received then S.20 of the Act comes into play - Once there is a presumption as contemplated u/s 20, it is for the accused to establish that the amount was not received as bribe - Accused not explained as to why he..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13 -- Illegal gratification - Legal position in a trap case summarized viz. (i) To succeed in such a case, the prosecution is obliged to prove the previous demand of bribe, its acceptance and the recovery of tainted money; (ii) The demand can be proved by the testimony of the complainant as well from the complaint made by him..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 20 -- Illegal gratification - Recovery - Presumption - Once the currency notes are recovered from the pocket of the shirt of accused it is for the accused to explain as to how the same came into his possession, which were a short while ago in the possession of the complainant - Accused can rebut such presumption by leading..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5(2), 5(1)(d), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 161 -- Illegal gratification - Recovery of Rs.1, 00/- in a trap - Phenolphthalein test proved positive of hand and pocket of accused - Defence version that tainted currency notes were forcibly thrusted in his pocket - No doubt trap witnesses are interested witness but their..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 20, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 106 -- Burden of proof - Presumption u/s 20 of the Act is a rebuttable presumption - Accused can rebut it either through the cross examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence - It is not necessary for the accused to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt -..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(1)(d),, 20, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 4, 101, 102, 103, 104, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 313 -- Illegal gratification - Evidence of witnesses corroborated by recovery of tainted money from accused - Phenolphthalein test proved positive - Variance between explanation given by accused to I.O. and that given u/s..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(2), 13(1)(d)(i), 20 -- Illegal gratification - Bribe money recovered from possession of accused - Conviction on the sole testimony of complainant - PW in whose presence the bribe was given not examined - Presumption under S.20 of the Act raised - Accused convicted on the sole testimony of complainant as the same was reliable..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(d), 20 -- Illegal gratification - Receiving of money - Presumption as to - Rebuttal of - Accused had stated that money was planted in the file - Version of accused that money planted in the file is not supported by any material - On other hand, case of prosecution that money was given to accused and it was received by..........
