Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANJAY A.DESHMUKH
Sharad S/o Manga Tayade – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of convictions and charges against appellant. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding illegality of the judgment. (Para 3) |
| 3. cited legal precedents to support the appeal. (Para 4) |
| 4. state's rebuttal against the appeal. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. duty of prosecution to prove sanction validity. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. demand for bribe not sufficiently proved. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 7. allowing of appeal and acquittal of appellant. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the convicted accused against the judgment dated 8th January, 2018, passed by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Nanded in Special (ACB) Case No.7 of 2015, by which the appellant was convicted under Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the PC Act”) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appellant was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)d) read with (2) of the PC Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous i
The court emphasized that mere acceptance of a bribe is insufficient for conviction without proving the demand; prosecution must establish essential elements beyond reasonable doubt.
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....
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; failure to prove these elements results in acquittal.
Prevention of corruption -Demand of Bribe - Trap case - Recovery of tainted amount - Conviction set aside - Mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused.
Requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act is critical for conviction; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
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....
The evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Ac....
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery without evidence of bribe demand is insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the importance of a valid sanc....
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
