Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money From Accused In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Not Sufficient To Sustain Conviction : Bombay High Court

In a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, mere recovery of tainted money from the accused in the absence of proof of demand is not sufficient to sustain the conviction, reiterated the Bombay High Court. "Mere recovery of tainted money from the accused in the absence of proof of demand is not sufficient to sustain the conviction," the court held. "Demand of gratification cannot be held to be proved only on the basis of complaint filed and the legal position being well settled to the effect that any absence of proof of demand, mere recovery of tainted money from accused, cannot sustain his conviction" Justice Dangre said, in a corruption case, the complainant's claim needs to be closely scrutinized since giving bribe too is an offence. "The Evidence Act do not contemplate that the accused should prove the case with the same strictness and rigor as the prosecution is required to prove a criminal charge and it is sufficient if the accused is able to prove his case by standard of preponderance of probabilities as envisaged under Section 5 of the Evidence Act as a result of which he succeeds, not because he proves his case to the hilt but because probability of the version given by him throws doubt on the prosecution case and, therefore, the prosecution cannot be said to have established the charge beyond reasonable doubt," the court said.