Back
TIRTHANKAR GHOSH
Sanjay Kumar Arya – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Tirthankar Ghosh, J.—The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.09.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Special (CBI) Court, Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman, in connection with Special Case No. 18/2011 arising out of Case No. RC0102006A0029 dated 06.11.2013 wherein the learned Judge, Special (CBI) Court was pleased to convict the appellant under Section 7 & Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment as follows:—
“The accused person, Sanjay Kumar Arya, is hereby sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three (3) years [Two (2) years for commission offence u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and one (1) year for commission of offence u/s 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - both shall not run concurrently] and shall also pay fine of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand only), in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months.”
2. The genesis of the present case was on the basis of a complaint received by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB Kolkata, from one Pawan Kumar, Junior Engineer-1, Diesel Loco shed, Office of Seni
Illegal gratification – Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained where sanction order is not showing application of mind by Authority.
The court emphasized that a valid sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, and inconsistencies in witness....
Prosecution must prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe; failure to establish these elements results in acquittal.
Bribe - Conviction - Sanction for prosecution - unless any prejudice is shown or any glaring infirmity or illegality in the investigation is established, the prosecution case cannot be discarded mere....
(1) Mere receipt of amount by accused is not sufficient to fasten his guilt in absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of amount as illegal gratification.(2) Prosecution cannot d....
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....
(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....
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
