Back
PRAKASH D. NAIK
Bhagwan Nivrutti Wagh – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The appellant is convicted vide Judgment and order dtd. 19/7/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Special Case (ACB) No.7 of 2010 for offence under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "PC Act") and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3, 000.00. The appellant is also convicted for offence under Sec. 13(1)(d), r/w Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.3, 000.00. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case is as under :-
<WXY>i) The complainant's father had an agricultural land at Avankhed. He purchased the tractor for agricultural work. Bakaram Kokate was appointed as driver on the tractor. On 28/6/2019, the tractor was hired by Ashok Bahirat. Bakaram Kokate had performed agricultural work in the agricultural land of Mr. Bahirat. After completing work, the tractor was brought back. ii) The appellant/accused gave telephonic call to the complainant and called him at Dindori Police Station. The complainant approached him. The appellant/accused told the complainan
The demand and acceptance of bribe must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction without corroborative evidence.
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 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.
The prosecution must establish the 'demand' and 'acceptance' of the bribe amount to constitute the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Mere recovery of tainted notes without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance insufficient for conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) PC Act; demand is sine qua non, presumption under Section 20 ina....
Point of Law : Defence cannot be ballasted with the premise that Courts will, from the outset, be guarded against and suspicious of the testimony of trap witnesses.
[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 ....
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
