B. Jayaraj v.

State of Andhra Pradesh [(2014) 13 SCC 55]

It is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section
20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Unless
there is proof of demand of illegal gratification proof of acceptance will not follow. Reference may
be made to the two decisions of three.

"Ram Chander vs. State (GNCTD)

"23. Thus the legal position which emerges regarding appreciation of evidence in a trap case can be
summarized as under: (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 if proved in
accordance with law ; (iii) However if the complainant is unable to appear for whatever reason such
as his death, the demand can be also proved by way of circumstantial evidence ; (iv) A presumption
as to the demand of bribe can also be drawn if the tainted money i.e. the money tendered as bribe
money is recovered from the possession of the accused, which presumption of course is rebuttable.

A. Subair v. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587

"The legal position is no more res integra that primary requisite of an offence under Section
13(1) (d) of the Act is proof of a demand or request of a valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage from the public servant. In other words, in the absence of proof of demand or
request from the public servant, for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, the offence
under Section 13(1) (d) cannot be held to the established."

M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. 2001 (1) JCC 118

It is settled law that mere recovery of bribe money, divorced from the circumstances under
which it is paid, is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantial evidence of
demand and acceptance in the case is not reliable.

SEHDEV vs STATE, 2009 (3) JCC (NARCOTICS) 128

Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the arrest memo is supposed to indicate the precise date
and time of apprehending the accused and the concept of informal arrest as contrasted with
formal arrest is not envisaged under the CrPC or the NDPS Act.

Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja

that the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and, therefore, the
provisions of Section 50 must be strictly complied with. It is held that it is imperative on the part
of the Police Officer to apprise the person intended to be searched of his right under Section 50
to be searched only before a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate. It is held that it is equally
mandatory on the part of the authorized officer to make the suspect aware of the existence of
 his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if so required by him and this
requires a strict compliance. It is ruled that the suspect person may or may not choose to
exercise the right provided to him under Section 50 of the NDPS Act but so far as the officer is
concerned, an obligation is cast upon him under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to apprise the
suspect of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.

In State of Kerala and Anr. v. C.P. Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450

it was held that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the
accused and there has to be corroboration of the testimony of the complainant
regarding the demand of bribe.

Mukut Bihari and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 11 SCC 642

The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua
non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted
money is not sufficient to convict the accused, when the substantive evidence in
the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to
show that the money was taken voluntarily as bribe.

(i)(2009)3 SCC 779– C.M.Girish Basu Vs. CBI,

(ii)(2009)6 SCC 587 – A.Subair Vs. State of Kerala
(iii)(2011)6 SCC 450 – State of Kerala & another Vs. C.P.Rao.

that mere recovery of money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantial
evidence are not reliable. To substantiate the said argument, he has has relied upon.

(1997) 9 Supreme Court Cases 477.

From a combined reading of Section 161 IPC and Section 4 (1) of the Act it is evident that
if, in the instant case, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the appellant was a
public servant at the material time and that he had `accepted' or `obtained' Rs. 1,000/-
from P.W.9 as gratification not only the first two ingredients of the former would stand
proved but also the third, in view of the presumption under the latter which the Court is
bound to draw unless, of course, the appellant, in his turn, has succeeded in rebutting
that presumption. According to Shorter Oxford Dictionary `accept' means to take or
receive with a `consenting mind'. Obviously such a `consent' can be established not only
by leading evidence of prior agreement but also from the circumstances surrounding the
transaction itself without proof of such prior agreement. If an acquaintance of a public
servant in expectation and with the hope that in future, if need be, he would be able to
get some official favour from him, voluntarily offers any gratification and if the public
servant willingly takes or receives such gratification it would certainly amount to
`acceptance' within the meaning of Section 161IPC. It cannot be said, therefore, as an
abstract proposition of law, that without a prior demand there cannot be `acceptance.

Seema Arshad Zaheer Case

The discretion of the court is exercised to grant a temporary injunction only
when the following requirements are made out by the plaintiff: (i) existence
of a prima facie case as pleaded, necessitating protection of the plaintiff's
rights by issue of a temporary injunction; (ii) when the need for protection of
the plaintiff's rights is compared with or weighed against the need for
protection of the defendant's rights or likely infringement of the defendant's
rights, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of the plaintiff; and (iii)
clear possibility of irreparable injury being caused to the plaintiff if the
temporary injunction is not granted. In addition, temporary injunction being
an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only
when the plaintiff's conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court
with clean hands.

Anil Gulati vs. Promila Gulati (2015) 222 DLT 17

it is apparent that no defence in respect of any property can be raised against the
person in whose name the property is held on the plea that the property is held Benami,
with the exception that where the person, in whose name the property is held is "co
parcener" in the Hindu undivided Family and the property is held for the benefit of the
coparceners of the property or where the person in whose name the property is held is
a trustee or stands in a fiduciary capacity to another.

Ramesh Chand v Suresh Chand & Anr 2011 SCC OnLine Del 1049
It is well settled that the relief of possession can be granted on the basis of better title,
when the title of neither of the contesting parties is perfect.
Milkha Singh vs. Dvna & Ors. AIR 1964 Jammu & Kashmir 99
" After the termination of licence, the licensee is under clear obligation to surrender his
possession to the owner and if fails to do so, we do not see any reason why the licensee
cannot be compelled to discharge this obligation by way of a mandatory injunction
under s. 55 of the Specific Relief Act. We might further mention that even under English
law a suit for injunction to evict a licensee has always been held to be maintainable.

ILR 1992

Somshekar Vs state

Criteria and conditions for grant of bail

1. Deprivation of personal liberty must be evident.

CBI Vs. Kenche Mahesh Kumar ILR 2015 Kar 4054 (2015) 8 SCC 340

Ravi Prakash Singh Vs State of Bihar ((2015) 8 SCC 340.