Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
M. M. NERLIKAR
State of Maharashtra, through Deputy Superintendent of Police – Appellant
Versus
Narayan S/o Shri Shivram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. M. Nerlikar, J.
Heard.
2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.12.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge Warora in Special (ACB) Case No. 11/2008, wherein the accused i.e. present respondent is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”).
3. The prosecution case in brief appears to be:-
The complainant Shri Ashok Kathane intending to relinquish his rights in favour of his son qua his shop property vide a gift deed applied for mutation in favour of his son in the Office of the Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Chimur on 20.02.2003. At the relevant time, the present respondent was working as Head Quarter Assistant, demanded an amount of Rs.2000/- as illegal gratification for mutation entry but the complainant unable to pay the said amount and asked to reduce the amount to Rs.200/-. However, the accused/present respondent was persistent in his demand of Rs.2000/-. Again, on 09.07.2003, when the complainant went to respondent’s office, same demand was made, to which the complainant agreed. As the complainant had no intention to give bribe to the present
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 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.
The prosecution must establish the demand of illegal gratification and foundational facts before invoking the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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.
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.
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....
Important Point :The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to a lack of valid sanction and insufficient evidence of guilt, emphasizing the necessity of the Sanctioning Authority's application of mi....
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
