Prevention of Corruption Act,1988  - Section 13 (1) ,  (2) , Section 20

In the absence of proof of demand , no offence be fasten for mere possession - Presumption - Complainant not supported the prosecution - no other witness was examined who saw the handed over the tainted money to the accused - mere possession of tainted amount makes an offence ? - Trial court and high court held that it is an offence - but the Apex court held that in the absence of proof of demand of bribe, mere possession can not fasten liability as the presumption under sec.20 can be drawn only under sec.7 but not to an offences under sec. 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Act. and as such the apex court set aside the order and acquitted the accused.

Topic(s)-Corruption – Demand – Conviction set aside