KISHORE C. SANT
Dnyandeo – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Kishore C. Sant, J. - This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 31.05.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon in Special Case No. 01/1999, whereby the present appellant-accused is held guilty of the 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). He is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2500/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment (S.I.) for six months for the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act. He is further sentenced to suffer R.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs.2500/- in default to suffer S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 13(2) of P.C. Act. Both the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. The story of the Prosecution in short is as below:
The present appellant/accused was working as a Head Constable in the Police Department at Kopargaon Police Station. The complainant namely Bhimrao lodged a complaint that his cousin brothers assaulted his another cousin namely Punja. The complainant and his brother - Dashrath tried to intervene in the dispute. T
Kanu Ambu Vish Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1971 SC 2256
Khilli Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1985 SC 79
Som Prakash Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1992 SC 665
V. Venkata Subbarao Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police A.P.
Vinod Savalaram Kanadkhedkar Vs. State of Maharashtra 2016 (4) MhLJ (Cri) 570
The need for corroboration of evidence in corruption cases, the importance of a valid sanction, and the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The demand and acceptance of bribe must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction without corroborative evidence.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In corruption cases, the prosecution must prove demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and any mechanical sanction without proper authority is invalid.
In assessing cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, mere inquiries about bribe amounts do not equate to a legal demand, and evidence must be compelling to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony can undermine the case, leading to acquittal.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroborating evidence of interested witnesses on the trap with independent evidence, and the need to consider allegations o....
Evidence of demand and acceptance is crucial for conviction in corruption cases; mere recovery of money is insufficient without proof of illegal gratification.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.