Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE
Mohd. Kasam Tadwi – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
(Abhay S. Waghwase, J.)
1. Appellant, who stood convicted for offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is taking exception to the judgment and order dated 30-09-2005, passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Special Case No.16 of 2003.
PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF
2. Mother of complainant PW2 Prashant was in the business of selling bed sheet. She had applied for loan through Mahatma Phule Magasvargiya Vikas Mahamandal (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”), Aurangabad. File of her loan was assigned to Allahabad Bank. Complainant accompanied by her mother visited said Bank and they were told that necessary enquiry and inspection would be done before granting sanction. In August 2002 it was learnt that loan was sanctioned and letter was issued on 27-08-2002. However, for further process of loan, pay order of subsidy amount of Rs.10,000/- was required from the Corporation. Therefore, PW2 complainant visited said Corporation. One Pawar and Kamble working in the said Corporation directed hi
The prosecution must prove demand for illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction 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.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and mere recovery of money is insufficient to establish guilt without corroborating evidence of these elements.
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 court upheld the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, affirming that consistent testimonies established the demand for bribe and the validity of the sanction for prosecution.
The prosecution must prove the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification, and the accused must rebut the presumption raised under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient without establishing these elements.
The judgment establishes that the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification, along with the validity of the sanction order, are crucial in proving corruption under the Prevention of C....
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
Listen Article