Back
KISHORE C. SANT
Sanjay Gopalrao Wangikar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through Anti-Corruption Bureau, Parbhani – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Complainant against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Parbhani in Special Case No. 01/2000, by which, the learned Special Judge has held the Appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act for short). The Appellant is directed to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under Section 7 of P.C. Act. He is further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1500/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d). Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. The case of Prosecution in short is that the Appellant was working as an Extension Officer, Zilla Parishad Parbhani in Panchayat Samiti, Gangakhed. While he was working as such, he demanded a bribe of Rs.1500/- from the Complainant – Narayan Parande (PW-1), who was then Sarpanch of village Lasina in
The judgment underscores the necessity of proving a specific demand for illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act and highlights the significance of the accused's authority in the ....
(1) A person for charges of corruption under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be convicted on moral and ethics.(2) Order granting sanction must be demonstrative of fact that there had been p....
Evidence of demand and acceptance is crucial for conviction in corruption cases; mere recovery of money is insufficient without proof of illegal gratification.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe as required by law, and the recovery of currency notes without proof of demand does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of C....
Proof of demand for bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
The evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Ac....
Point of law : Once conviction is recorded under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it casts a social stigma on the person in the society apart from serious consequences on the servi....
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
