Back
URMILA JOSHI PHALKE
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Ravindra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Urmila Joshi Phalke, J.—By this appeal, the appellant (the State) has challenged judgment and order dated 27.4.2019 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Chandrapur (learned Judge of the trial court) in Special (ACB Case No.1/2006) whereby the respondent (the accused) is acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the said Act).
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, complainant Manohar Domaji Kaurase, was residing at Gadchandur. In the year 1994, he purchased a plot admeasuring 4018 square meters in Deshpande layout at Gadchandur. He also paid property tax in the year 2002. On 20.1.2005, he moved an application in the office of Talathi for obtaining 7/12 extract. At the relevant time, the accused was serving as Talathi. The complainant requested the accused for issuing 7/12 extract and the accused asked him to visit after 10 days as his application was not filed along with index. On 8.6.2005, the complainant again met the accused. At the relevant time, as per allegation, the accused demanded Rs.1700/- and after a negotiation, shown his readiness to accept Rs.1500/-. The accused furthe
(1) Illegal gratification – Mere recovery of currency notes from accused without proof of demand would not be sufficient to prove offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Ac....
Proof of demand is essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction.
Evidence of demand and acceptance is crucial for conviction in corruption cases; mere recovery of money is insufficient without proof of illegal gratification.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue, and the perm....
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for convictions under corruption laws; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, and the permissibility of drawing inferential ....
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.
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
