Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, ARIJIT PASAYAT, HARJIT SINGH BEDI
Sayyed Shabiralli Hafizali – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the `Act). The learned Special Judge, Ahmednagar, had found the accused-appellant guilty and convicted him as aforenoted and to suffer imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The complainant Mhatardeo Dagadu Dahale, resident of Dule (Chandgaon) was running a tailoring shop by name Surekha Ladies Tailors at Pathardi. The land bearing S.No.92/1 situated at village Dule (Chandgaon) was owned by complainants father. He wanted to install electric pump set on the well situated in the said land. For that purpose, he had made an application to the office of Maharashtra State Electricity Boa
Illegal gratification – Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would come into operation only when there is no nexus between demand and action performed – But, when fact of receipt of payme....
The judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proven as a fact, and the prosecution can rely on direct or circumstantial evidence to establish guilt.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of money without evidence of demand is insufficient.
The court affirmed that consistent witness testimonies and forensic evidence are crucial in establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, and the permissibility of drawing inferential ....
The demand for illegal gratification is a prerequisite for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article