Back
M. S. KARNIK
Shrikant Chimaji Jahagirdar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.S. KARNIK, J.
1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge, Solapur convicting the appellant (accused No. 1) for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter ‘the PC Act’ for short) and thereby sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months. The appellant was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as under:
The main legal point established is the requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt, using direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, and the presumpt....
Illegal gratification – Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act can be invoked only when two basic facts of ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of gratification are proved – When allegation is of demand of grat....
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, and the prosecution must prove the demand of gratification beyond reasonable d....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue, and the perm....
Illegal gratification – Allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond reasonable doubt – Mere possession or recovery of currency notes is ....
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential to establish offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient fo....
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish corruption charges under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, with mere return of money not sufficient without es....
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
