Back
KISHORE C. SANT
Deepak s/o Laxman Shinde – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kishore C. Sant, J.
1. The appellant is before this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 14.12.2004, passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmednagar, in Special Case No. 10 of 1998. The appellant is held guilty of the offences punishable under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for 6 months for each of the offences. The sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant at the relevant time was working as Junior Engineer with the then M.S.E.B. at Karjat, District Ahmednagar. The informant Gautam Dagadu Shelke approached Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) on 09.02.1998 and lodged a report. It is informed that the said informant had applied for electricity connection for installing an electric motor pump of 5 H.P. on the well situated in his land. There were also applications made by the others persons for getting electricity connections. On making an application the informant also deposited amount as per quotation. He was told in the MSEB office that he will receive letter from their
The court affirmed that consistent witness testimonies and forensic evidence are crucial in establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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 court affirmed that the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, validating the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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 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 prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing the fundamental aspects of demand and acceptance in corruption cases to invoke the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption ....
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act can only be raised when foundational facts are establish....
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
