Back
M. S. KARNIK
Pandurang Raghunath Dhimte – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.S. KARNIK, J.
1. These appeals challenge a common judgment and order of the trial Court and hence decided by a common judgment. The appellant in Appeal No. 1473 of 2004 is the original accused no. 1. The appellant in Appeal No. 1480 of 2004 is the original accused no. 2. The challenge in these appeals is to the judgment and order passed by the trial Court convicting the accused no. 1 for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’ for short) sentencing him to suffer two and a half years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo 2 month’s rigorous imprisonment. Accused no. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under section 13(2)(d) read with section 13(2) of the PC Act and sentenced to suffer two and a half years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine, 2 month’s rigorous imprisonment. So far as the accused no. 2 is concerned, he is convicted for the offence punishable under section 12 of the PC Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of fine, 1 month’s rigorous imprisonment.
2.
The judgment establishes the importance of proving the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a fact in issue, and the discretionary nature of the presumption of fact under the Prevention ....
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.
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.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient without establishing these elements.
Statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and can be utilised only to corroborate or contradict the witness vis-a-vis statement made in court. In other words, it can be utilised on....
When clouds of doubt arises on the part of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt is always accrued on the part of the accused alone, which is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery syste....
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
