Back
SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI
Sayaji Dashrath Kawade – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed in Special Case No. 4 of 2000 by the Special Judge (P.C. Act), Aurangabad, the appellant/original accused has preferred this appeal.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are as under:
3. The appellant was serving as Sub Divisional Engineer in the Department of Telecommunications at Aurangabad at the relevant point of time. The complainant (PW-1) Devidas Mohite had applied for installation of STD/PCO booth at Aurangabad. One Mr. Anil Agrawal was STD machines dealer and he contacted to the complainant that he should purchase machine from him. Accordingly, the complainant received demand note of Rs.5,000/-, and the complainant deposited the same in the telephone office. The site inspection was conducted when the appellant refused to give connection in the said premises on account of change of site. Mr. Anil Agrawal informed to the complainant that if he wanted to install the STD booth in the same premises, he had to pay Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant agreed to pay the said amount. But he was not ready to pay bribe. The complainant went to ACB office at Aurangabad and lodged comp
(1) A person for charges of corruption under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be convicted on moral and ethics.(2) Order granting sanction must be demonstrative of fact that there had been p....
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....
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.
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....
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of currency notes is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Establishing demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; failure to prove these elements results in acquittal.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and minor contradictions in evidence ma....
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
