Back
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE
Nasibkhan Gulabkhan Pathan – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. In both appeals, exception has been taken to the judgment and order dated 29.09.2005 passed by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special Case (AC) No. 4 of 2003 recording guilt of appellants for offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act] respectively.
CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF
2. In brief, case of prosecution is that anti corruption department received complaint from PW1 Chandrakant, who reported that one Regular Criminal Case was on the file of learned JMFC, Kallam against Gorba Sukale and three others, at his instance. In that connection, informant had approached accused no.1, who was Assistant Public Prosecutor [APP] in said court, and appellant accused demanded Rs.1,000/- to put up the case properly before the court and to take further steps of issuing warrant. Unwillingly, PW1 paid part amount and balance of Rs.500/- was decided to be paid later on. As he was not willing to pay illegal gratification, he lodged report Exhibit 54, which was entertained by PW6 Dy.S.P. Gavali, and on the strength of the same, he arranged panchas, planned trap, prepared pre-trap panchanama Exhibit 35, gav
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of corroborative evidence and a valid sanction for prosecution.
In corruption cases, the prosecution must prove demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and any mechanical sanction without proper authority is invalid.
In assessing cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, mere inquiries about bribe amounts do not equate to a legal demand, and evidence must be compelling to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt, requiring independent corroboration, particularly when the key witness has credibility issues.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance as crucial elements for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the requirement of valid sanction for prosecution is essential. Lack o....
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt; mere recovery of currency notes is insufficient without credible evidence of demand.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of currency notes is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere possession of currency notes is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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
