Back
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE
Wasudeo – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J. - The appellant (accused) has challenged judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.3.2005 passed by learned Special Judge, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (learned Judge of the trial court), Nagpur in Special Criminal Case No.8/1998.
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 six months and to pay fine Rs. 300/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
The accused is further convicted 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 one year and to pay fine Rs. 300/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
Learned judge of the trial court directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. Facts of the prosecution case in brief, emerge from recorded evidence adduced, are as under:
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 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 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 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.
Proof of demand for bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
Requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act is critical for conviction; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
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
