Back
RAJNESH OSWAL
Union Territory of J&K – Appellant
Versus
Ashu Jolly – Respondent
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 02.03.2020 recorded by the court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu (for short ‘the trial court’) in case titled, ‘State vs. Ashu Jolly’, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charge for the commission of offences under section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) and 4-A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, registered with Police Station, Vigilance Organization, (Now, Anti-Corruption Bureau), Jammu.
2. The judgment has been assailed by the appellant on the ground that despite there being sufficient oral, documentary and scientific evidence in respect of conscious demand and acceptance of bribe by the respondent and subsequent recovery of the same from the respondent, the learned trial court has acquitted the respondent by sheer wrong and mis-appreciation of evidence.
3. Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Senior AAG has submitted that the prosecution had proved the demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe of amount of Rs.5,000 from the respondent, as such, the learned trial court could not have acquitted the respondent and in fact, the judgment is perverse and contrary to the evidence brought on
(1) Appeal against acquittal – Order of acquittal further strengthens presumption of innocence of accused – Only because other view better than that of trial court is also possible on same set of evi....
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to substantiate a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of bribe money without proven dem....
Mere recovery of tainted notes without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance insufficient for conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) PC Act; demand is sine qua non, presumption under Section 20 ina....
The proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient without evidence of demand and....
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.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to convict under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of bribe money is insufficient.
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.
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
