Back
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Dilip Kumar Roy – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
The Appeal :-
1. The appeal has been preferred against a Judgment dated 07.10.2015 and Order dated 08.10.2015 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Third Court, and Judge Third Special Court, Bankura in connection with Special Court Case No. 2 of 2000, arising out of Chhatna Police Station Case No. 16/97 dated 30.04.97 and under Sections 463/464/465/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for another two months and also convicting the appellant under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for another three months.
The Prosecution:-
2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that:-
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential, but inferential deductions can be made in the absence of direct evidence.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, and the prosecution must prove the demand of gratification beyond reasonable d....
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 main legal point established is the requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt, using direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, and the presumpt....
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 ....
(1) Illegal gratification – In absence of evidence of complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant ....
Illegal gratification – Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act can be invoked only when two basic facts of ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of gratification are proved – When allegation is of demand of grat....
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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
