Back
VINEET SARAN, J. K. MAHESHWARI
Rajesh Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State Through Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction of appellant under pc act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of alleged bribe demands. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. details of cbi's trap procedure. (Para 8 , 14) |
| 4. evidentiary standards for audio recordings. (Para 11 , 13) |
| 5. evidence of demand needed to prove corruption. (Para 16 , 17 , 20) |
| 6. insufficient evidence leads to acquittal. (Para 18 , 21) |
| 7. final decision: acquittal of appellant. (Para 22) |
ORDER :
This appeal has been filed questioning the validity of the judgment passed on 25.3.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2009 by the High Court of Delhi confirming the judgment dated 24.1.2009 passed by Special Judge, Central District02, Delhi in C.C. No. 195 of 2001 convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 7 & 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “PC Act”) and the order of sentence dated 27.1.2009 whereby for the offence under Section 7 of PC Act, the appellant was sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 15,000/ and in default, further simple imprisonment for 30 days and for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, rigorous imprisonment for 2½ year
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of currency notes is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In bribery trap cases, proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of gratification is essential; mere recovery of tainted notes insufficient amid material witness contradictions, absent shadow witness ....
Requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act is critical for conviction; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
When clouds of doubt arises on the part of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt is always accrued on the part of the accused alone, which is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery syste....
Proof of demand and voluntary acceptance essential for conviction under Sections 7/13(2) PC Act; mere tainted money recovery insufficient. Appellate interference in acquittal only if perverse or unre....
Mere recovery of tainted notes without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance insufficient for conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) PC Act; demand is sine qua non, presumption under Section 20 ina....
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond a reasonable doubt, and the invocation of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is essential for establishing the offen....
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe by public servants is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, established through testimonies and corroborative evidence.
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
