KISHORE C. SANT
Mohammed Ali Khan Mehboob Ali Khan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Kishore C. Sant, J. - This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 16.07.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Aurangabad in Special Case No. 17/1998, whereby the present appellant-accused is held guilty of the ofence 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 sufer Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for six months and to pay fne of Rs.250/- in default to sufer R.I. for ffteen days for the ofence under Section 7 of P.C. Act. He is further sentenced to sufer R.I. for one year and to pay fne of Rs.250/- in default to sufer Simple Imprisonment (S.I.) for ffteen days for the ofence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 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 Maintenance Surveyor in the City Survey Ofice, Aurangabad. The complainant namely Manoj Gadia purchased house (CTS No.5725) at Nagarkhana, Aurangbad from one Jairaj Pandey on 19.08.1997. The complainant applied to City Survey Ofice to record his name in P.R. card by taking mutation entry
The judgment emphasizes the requirement to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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 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.
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 as required by law, and the recovery of currency notes without proof of demand does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of C....
(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....
The demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and consistent and credible evidence is essential to establish the demand.
The court affirmed that the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, validating the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court affirmed that consistent witness testimonies and forensic evidence are crucial in establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
[The necessity of proving the demand for bribe as a fundamental requirement for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the importance of independent witness testimony in establishing ....
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.