Back
SARANG V. KOTWAL
Ghanshyam Hari Pagare – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order dtd. 10/08/2001 passed by the Special Judge, Nashik, in Special Case No.4 of 1993. He was convicted and sentenced as Digitally follows :
(a) The Appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act') and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.
(b) He was also convicted for commission of offence punishable u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1, 000.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(c) Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Besides the Appellant, there was one more accused i.e. accused No.2 Vishnu Dagdu Gaikar. He was acquitted from the charges of commission of offence punishable u/s 7 and 12 of the PC Act. He was completely acquitted. He was not charged for any other offence.
3. Heard Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy), learned counsel for the
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....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of omissions and contradictions in witness statements, the absence of incriminating evidence, and the lack of examination of a cruci....
The importance of corroborative evidence, consistency in witness statements, and proof beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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 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 prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in corruption cases, where inconsistencies in evidence can lead to acquittal.
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
