Back
PRAKASH D. NAIK
Bhikaji Vishnu Patil – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
PRAKASH D.NAIK, J. - The appellant was charged for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The judgment was reserved after hearing both the sides. Thereafter the appeal was listed on 2/5/2022. Further submissions were heard and again closed for judgment.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :
i) The complainant Bhairavnath Ganpati Khandekar is resident Bolawi village, Tq. Kagal. His father Ganpati Khandekar holds 4 to 5 acres of land at village Bolawi. Complaint 's father and brothers are cultivating the said land; ii) Since there was no source of irrigation for the land, father of complainant applied to Panchayat Samiti, Kagal for sanctioning a well under Jawahar Water Scheme in the month of December-1999 and prayed for subsidy for constructing well. Necessary papers were attached to the application;
(iii) The Block Development Officer of Panchayat Samiti Kagal informed the father of complainant to execute the agreement for constructing well. Accordingly, complainant 's father went to the office of Panchayat Samiti, Kagal in the month of March-2000 and executed necessary agreement and agreed
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and cogent evidence to prove the charge of demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The confusion and discrepancies....
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 ....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court emphasize....
The prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, including demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and the accused is considered innocent until proven otherwise.
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.
Prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction; mere acceptance of bribe is inadequate.
The demand of bribe is essential to prove charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
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
