SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Leela Bai – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Shri Avinash Singh, Advocate.
For the State:Shri Bhasker Payashi, Panel Lawyer, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.8.1997 passed by learned Special Judge, Raipur, in Special Case No.138/91, whereby and whereunder the deceased appellant B.L. Dharshan is held guilty of commission of offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000 under Section 7 and RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000 under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988. In default of payment of fine on both count, additional SI for 3 months. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. Prosecution story, as unfolded from the records of the case and judgment of the learned trial Court, is that complainant Premlal Verma (PW2) submitted application on 25.4.1988 for supply of copy of revenue records relating to land belonging to his father before the Tahsildar, on which, order was passed directing appellant/accused to supply copies. When complainant approached the appellant, bribe of Rs.100 was demanded for supply of copy. As t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top