Back
SANJAY KUMAR, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
State of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
K. A. Abdul Rasheed – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. We have before us, divergent findings in a prosecution initiated under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19881[‘the Act’]. The trial court convicted the accused and imposed a sentence of two years both under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) to be suffered concurrently along with a fine of Rs.10,000 and default sentence under each of the two provisions. The High Court found that the prevaricating deposition of the complainant who was examined as PW1 failed to establish the necessary ingredients to prove offences under both the sections; particularly the demand. Placing reliance on the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 the accused was acquitted and the State is in appeal.
3. We heard Shri Raghenth Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State who took us through the deposition of PW1 to argue that though inconsistent statements were made, there was sufficient oral evidence regarding the demand and the acceptance stood proved by the evidence of PW1 corroborated by that of PW2 an independent witness and
Neeraj Dutta VS State (Govt. of N. C. T. of Delhi) - 2023 1 Supreme 691: The provided text describes legal principles related to evidence and conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act (likely the Prevention of Corruption Act), including inferential deductions of guilt, proof via oral/documentary evidence, and conviction based on hostile witness testimony if corroborated. There are no keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment by subsequent decisions, such as "followed," "distinguished," "criticized," "questioned," "overruled," "reversed," or "abrogated." The description appears to be a standalone summary of holdings rather than an annotation of treatment patterns, making its categorization unclear based on the provided information.
Illegal gratification – False explanation given by accused insofar as acceptance is another compelling circumstance pointing to guilt of accused.
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.
Establishing demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; failure to prove these elements results in acquittal.
The conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires unequivocal proof of demand and acceptance of bribe; merely recovering money does not suffice if the demand is unproven.
The failure to substantiate the demand and acceptance of a bribe precludes conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Without sufficient evidence, the accused may be acquitted.
The lack of proof of demand for illegal gratification is a crucial factor in determining the conviction under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act.
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
