SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
State – Appellant
Versus
Bijinder Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
1. The present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 06.01.2010 passed by learned Special Judge, Delhi ('Trial Court.) in CC No. 36/2005 whereby the respondent was acquitted for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('P.C. Act, 1988.).
2. To state briefly, the case of prosecution before the Trial Court was that a complaint dated 02.09.2004 was lodged with Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi by one Parmod Kumar, i.e. complainant, against Bijender Singh, i.e. respondent/accused, who was working as MohararMalkhana at Police Station ('P.S..) Narela at that time.
2.1. The complainant had stated that on 27.08.2004, he had gone to the office of NDPL, Narela, Delhi on his Motorcycle to deposit electricity bill, and had found his motorcycle missing when he had come out of the office. Upon inquiring, he had come to know that his motorcycle was seized by the police officials of P.S. Narela. On 01.09.2004, the complainant had moved an application in the office of ACP, Narela for release of his motorcycle, and an order was th
The main legal point established is that demand of bribe is essential to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of money without proof of demand is insufficient for....
The central legal point established is that the demand for illegal gratification is a sine qua non for convicting an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove the....
Proof of demand and voluntary acceptance essential for conviction under Sections 7/13(2) PC Act; mere tainted money recovery insufficient. Appellate interference in acquittal only if perverse or unre....
Both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are required for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of bribe without proven demand fails to establish culpability....
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....
Illegal gratification – Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would come into operation only when there is no nexus between demand and action performed – But, when fact of receipt of payme....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of proving both demand and recovery for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the burden of proof on the accused to ....
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.