IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
APURBA SINHA RAY
State – Appellant
Versus
M. Hari Krishna – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
APURBA SINHA RAY, J.
1. Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar, learned Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the respondent/accused was a Revenue Officer and Patwari. He was charged with demand and receipt of illegal gratification from the complainant who filed an application for mutation of land in his name along with others. The accused demanded Rs. 5,000/- from the Complainant for performance of his public duties. The complainant informed the Anti Corruption Unit and thereafter all formalities were complied with for laying tracking evidence and ultimately the accused was caught red handed.
2. Mr. Karmakar has argued that the prosecution adduced 12 witnesses in support of its case and there is no infirmity in the evidence of those prosecution witnesses apart from some minor contradictions. However the learned Special Judge did not consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other materials on record in proper perspective and the order of acquittal of the accused from charges of the case that is under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 7/13(2) and13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not sustainable in law.
3. Mr.
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 both the demand and acceptance of bribes beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
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 demand for illegal gratification is essential to constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to establish guilt without proof ....
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 ....
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt to establish the guilt of the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.