Back
VIPIN SANGHI
Mahipal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
How to establish demand and conscious acceptance of illegal gratification under PC Act? What is the role of corroborative evidence and hostilities of witnesses in proving a trap case? What is the effect of mandatory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act on conviction?
Key Points: - The prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubt, supported by PW-6, PW-7, PW-9 and corroborative pre- and post-raid materials, including FSL report (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The hand and pant pocket washes turned pink with phenolphthalein test, corroborating that the accused received the bribe and stored it in his pocket; this supports the panchnama and post-raid proceedings as evidence not hit by Section 161/162 Cr.P.C. (!) (!) [p_11/C] (!) . - Even though PW-6 and PW-7 turned partly hostile, their testimony was considered corroborated by pre-raid and post-raid documents, raid officer testimony, and FSL report; hostile testimony can be relied upon if corroborated (!) (!) (!) . - The court held that the mandatory presumption under Section 20 PC Act is raised when demand and acceptance are established, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut; the accused failed to provide a defence to rebut the presumption (!) (!) . - The conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) PC Act is upheld; appeal dismissed; the appellant must surrender to complete the sentence (!) . - Complainant’s complaint and pre-raid / post-raid records show that the money was demanded and accepted by the accused, not by any other person present (!) (!) (!) .
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.04.2008 delivered by Sh. AS Yadav, learned Special Judge, Delhi in Corruption Case no. 30/03, by which the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections (u/s) 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’) punishable under Section 13(2) PC Act. By the order on sentence dated 04.04.2008, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of the fine - Simple Imprisonment (SI) for two months u/s 7 of PC Act. For offences punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for three years along with a fine of Rs 10,000/-, and in default of payment of the said fine further SI for two months. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that- the complainant (PW-6), Mohd. Zakir, purchased a room at the address- 618, Gali Telian, Ganj Meer Khan, behind Delite Cinema, Delhi for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- from his uncle, Abdul Gaffar, vide an agreement to sell. However, the com
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
