KISHORE C. SANT
Sheshrao, S/o. Sopanrao Dhondge – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Kishore C. Sant, J.)
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Parbhani in Special Case No. 15 of 2000 dated 31.03.2004, the appellant original accused has approached this Court. He is held guilty of & convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay find of Rs. 1,000/-, I.D. to under go R.I. for 3 months for each of the offences. Sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution was initiated on a complaint filed by one Manik Shivram Perke PW-4 by Dy. S.P. (ACB) Parbhani prosecution case is that PW-1 Devidas Dukare, a defacto Complainant was working as Primary Teacher, he had approached the accused, Block Education Officer for his pay fixation. On 29.01.2000 he met the accused. On that day when requested, the accused told him that though on earlier occasion he had transferred the complainant as per his request still he has not given anything to the accused. If Complainant wants that his pay should be fixed as per 5th Pay Commission then he has to pay Rs. 1,000/-, otherwise the work would
The court affirmed that the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, validating the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The judgment underscores the necessity of proving a specific demand for illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act and highlights the significance of the accused's authority in the ....
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 prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and the sanctioning authority must demonstrate proper application of mind before according sanction.
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 court affirmed that consistent witness testimonies and forensic evidence are crucial in establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In corruption cases, the prosecution must prove demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and any mechanical sanction without proper authority is invalid.
Proof of demand for bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
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.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe as required by law, and the recovery of currency notes without proof of demand does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of C....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.