📢 Too many exams? Don’t know which one suits you best? Book Your Free Expert 👉 call Now!

    Question

    Which case held that mere recovery of tainted money is

    not enough without proof of demand?
    A Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    B B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    C K. Veeraswami v. Union of India Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    D Ramesh Gelli case Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    E Mukesh Singh case Correct Answer Incorrect Answer

    Solution

    In B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court laid down a crucial principle of anti-corruption jurisprudence. The Court held that mere recovery of tainted currency notes from a public servant does not prove the offence unless the prosecution independently establishes demand for illegal gratification. Without proof of demand, the presumption under Section 20 cannot be invoked. This judgment safeguards against mechanical convictions based solely on recovery.

    Practice Next
    More Other Laws and Acts Questions

    Relevant for Exams:

    ask-question