SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Bom) 1288

ROHIT B.DEO
Gajanan – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :A.V. Bhide, Advocate
For the Respondent: A.V. Palshikar, Addl.P.P.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25-02-2002 in Special Case 9/1998 delivered by the learned Special Judge, Pusad, convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “accused”) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act. The accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years in addition to payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- for each of the offences, the sentence is, however, to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, as is culled out from the complaint lodged by Harish Jadhav dated 07061993 is that the complainant was working as tracer in the office of Public Works Department, Division-2, Amravati till 20-06-1992. He was transferred to the office of the Public Works Department, SubDivision Darwha by order dated 05-06-1992 and was relieved on 20-06-1992. The complainant felt ill and could not join duties immediately. He recovered from illness and joined duties at the office of Public Works Department, Sub-Division Darwha on 03-09-1992. However, one Shri C.V

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top