Question
Which case held that mere recovery of tainted money is
not enough without proof of demand?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.
Ravi has read 4/5 of a book while Saumya has read only 5/8 of the book she is reading. Both, however, have another 150 pages of their respective books r...
 If the numerator of a fraction is decreased by 20% and the denominator of the same fraction is increased by 30%, then what fraction of the old is the ...
Simplify:
0.36 ÷ 0.06 − 1.25 × (4/5) + 7/8
If the numerator of a fraction is increased by 20% and the denominator is decreased by 10%, the value of the fraction becomes 16/21. The original fracti...
0.0056 is equal to which of the following fractions?
2/5 of a number plus 3/10 of the same number is 70. Find the number.
Simplify: 2.4 ÷ 0.3 + 3/4
Simplify: 5/6 − 2/9 + 1/12
Express 7/16 as a decimal correct to three decimal places.
Relevant for Exams:
