Back
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE
Asha Babarao Vitalkar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through Anti Corruption Bureau – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant (accused) has challenged judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.2.2005 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, designated under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (learned Judge of the trial court), Nagpur in Special Case No.5/1996.
2. By the said judgment and order of conviction impugned, learned Judge of the trial court convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the said Act) and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
Learned Judge of the trial court also convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Learned Judge of the trial court also directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. During pendency of the appeal, the accused died and his legal heirs proceeded with the appeal with leave of the court.
4. Brief facts of the prosecution case run, as under:
The
Evidence of demand and acceptance is crucial for conviction in corruption cases; mere recovery of money is insufficient without proof of illegal gratification.
The demand for illegal gratification must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and a valid sanction is essential for prosecution.
The demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proven for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particu....
Proof of demand for bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; failure to prove these elements results in acquittal.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; failure to establish these elements leads 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
