MAHA SINGH vs STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION(1)

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, emphasizing that the recovery of a marked currency note from the accused's possession constituted clinching evidence. The Court ruled that the omission of a name in the charge was not materially prejudicial, as the accused was fully aware of the charges against him. Furthermore, the Court clarified that statements made during the investigation under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code are inadmissible under Section 162, reinforcing the evidentiary standards in corruption cases.