Back
S. M. MODAK
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Baburao Tayappa Mhetre – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.M. MODAK, J.
1. In this Appeal, the question arises whether the Special Judge was right in acquitting Respondent No. 1-accused for the offence punishable under section 7 and under section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short “said Act”) and was also justified in acquitting Respondent No. 2-accused for the offence of abetment punishable under section 12 of the said Act.
2. The Special Judge acquitted both the Respondents-accused for the reason that offence on the point of demand was not satisfactory and there was variance in between the evidence of the complainant PW-1 Shri Bhavsar and trap panch PW-3 Jaikumar Vanzari on material particulars. Whereas according to learned APP even though there were variances, it does not pertain to the material aspects but there are minor variance which normally occurs in evidence of two witnesses. Whereas learned Advocate for the Respondents supported the impugned judgment. So the question is whether variances noted by the Special Judge are on material particulars or whether they can be said to be natural variances and the question is whether Special Judge was justified in giving benefit to the Respondent
The judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and minor contradictions in evidence ma....
The essential requirement of proving a demand for illegal gratification by a public servant is critical for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and private individuals cannot be char....
The prosecution must establish the actual demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and any doubt in a criminal case should benefit the accused.
The judgment emphasizes the necessity for the prosecution to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, as well as the pending work with the accused, to sustain a conviction under ....
The prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction under Sec. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corrup....
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.
Point of Law : Defence cannot be ballasted with the premise that Courts will, from the outset, be guarded against and suspicious of the testimony of trap witnesses.
The court upheld that demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act are distinct offences, allowing for separate convictions based on the same facts.
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
