Back
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE
Shankar S/o Babarao Mukkawar, (dead) – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Learned Judge, Special Court, Wardha (learned Judge of the trial court) rendered judgment dated 30.9.2005 in Special Case No.1/2001 whereby the appellant (the accused) is convicted and, therefore, the said judgment is under challenge in this appeal.
2. By the judgment impugned in the appeal, for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the said Act), the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
For offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the said Act, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Learned Judge of the trial court directed that all sentences shall run concurrently.
3. During the pendency of the appeal, the accused expired and, therefore, his legal heir, i.e. wife, was brought on record to prosecute the appeal further.
FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE
4. The accused was serving as Executive Engineer with the Maharashtra Jivan Pradhikaran (MJP) at Wardha in the month of March
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.
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....
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.
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.
The court affirmed that a valid sanction and credible evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes are essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Prevention of corruption -Demand of Bribe - Trap case - Recovery of tainted amount - Conviction set aside - Mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused.
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
