Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN
Kailas Ramdas Sangle – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.)
1. By this appeal the appellant – accused challenges the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence rendered by the Special Judge, Greater Mumbai on 31.03.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 r/w 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “P.C.Act”).
2. The learned Judge, by the impugned judgment, sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act inter alia directing him to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) of the P.C. Act, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months.
3. The State Government has also preferred an appeal for enhancement of sentence on the ground of its inadequacy in view of Section 377(1) of the Cr.P.C. Obviously, the fate of an appeal by the State would depend upon outcome of the appeal preferred by the appellant against his conviction and sentence. In case, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed then only
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 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 possession of currency notes is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The lack of proof of demand for illegal gratification is a crucial factor in determining the conviction under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act.
Demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of money is insufficient.
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 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....
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 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.
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
