Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY
Sanjay Kumar Sharma S/o Late Gourishanker Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Through Central Bureau of Investigation, Jabalpur (M.P.) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court outlines the facts of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellant's counsel argues lack of evidence. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. prosecution's stance on the case. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. supreme court precedents on corruption evidence. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. emphasis on proof of demand for conviction. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. judgment concluding acquittal. (Para 27) |
JUDGMENT :
Rajani Dubey, J.
The appellant in this appeal calls in question the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12th July, 2007 passed by Special Judge, Central Investigation Bureau, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.49/2004 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused/appellant was posted as SDO, Phone-2 in BSNL, Bilaspur on 19.6.2003. In the year 2003 the complainant KP Agrawal, proprietor of M/s Akshay Construction, was doing the work of laying cable on contract under the accused/appellant. As the balance amount of the complainant remained unpaid, he contacted the appellant but the appellant demanded Rs.80,000/- bribe for it. The complainant agreed
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; 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 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....
Criminal Law - Demand of illegal gratification - Benefit of doubt - Absence of essential ingredient of demand of bribe, presumption in this case under Section 20 of Act, 1988 - Thus this is a fit cas....
In absence of essential ingredient of demand of money by accused, no offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 re....
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.
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
