Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
Rikhi Ram Paraste, S/o Shri Punawalal Paraste – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt Office, Bhopal , Ikai, Raipur , Distt. Raipur (CG) – Respondent
Judgment :
(Rajani Dubey, J.)
Challenge in the present appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.9.2005 passed by the Special Judge and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No. 10/2002 whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. | RI for one year, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for one month. |
| Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. | RI for two years, pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for two months. |
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Dr. Shankar Pushpkar opened a clinic at Nehru Nagar, Raipur and for the purpose of getting telephone connection in his clinic, on 12.4.2001 he deposited the requisite fee of Rs.2000/- with the Telephone Department but no such connection was provided to him. Hence the complainant sent his assistant Purushottam Manikpuri to Telephone Exchange, Tikrapara for enquiring about the matter
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 demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money without evidence of demand is insufficient for convictio....
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....
The demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential elements to establish an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove these elements beyond reasonab....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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.
To convict for bribery, both demand and voluntary acceptance must be proven; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
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
