Back
ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
Maixi Kujur, S/o Late Egnesh Kujur – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Superintendent of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 26.6.2018 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act’), Durg in Special Case No.3 of 2015, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.10,000, in default of payment thereof, additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 months |
| Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.10,000, in default of payment thereof, additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 months |
| The jail sentences are directed to run concurrently | |
2. According to the case of prosecution, on 22.12.2014, Complainant Laxmikant (PW2) lodged a written complaint (Ex.P1) in the office of Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur mentioning therein that he is an employee of Vineet Singh Construction Company and
Point of law : Once conviction is recorded under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it casts a social stigma on the person in the society apart from serious consequences on the servi....
The prosecution must prove the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification, and once these foundational facts are proved, there is a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Co....
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....
Demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of money is insufficient.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of currency notes is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and mere recovery of money is insufficient to establish guilt without corroborating evidence of these elements.
Demand of bribe - Conviction upheld - In trap case tainted money recovered from the pant of the Appellant - Demand proved 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
