IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.HARI SHANKAR, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
Prakash Chand Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition assailing his dismissal from service and his conviction thereof under Sections 7 & 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, [“The PC Act”, hereinafter], 1988 by the General Security Force Court, [“GSFC”, hereinafter] constituted under the Border Security Force Act, [“The BSF Act”, hereinafter], 1968. He further assails the confirmation of the same by Respondent No.3 and the disposal of his 'Pre Confirmation Petition' and 'Post Confirmation Petition' by Respondent No.2.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts as noted from the petition would be that the petitioner was enrolled in the Border Security Force, [“BSF”, hereinafter] as SI/JE (Elect.) on 16.06.1993 and was subsequently promoted to Deputy Commandant (Electricals) on 27.01.2020 at HQ South Bengal Frontier BSF.
3. Allegations of corruption were levelled against the petitioner and as such a Staff Court of Inquiry, [“SCIO” hereinafter] was initiated against him on 28.03.2022 to 'investigate into the circumstances relating to acceptance of bribe from civil contractors by pressurizing them', in lieu of which total 11 witness were examined. Since the
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v Chitra Venkata Rao
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu
The acceptance of bribes by a public servant is substantiated by circumstantial evidence and the presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires rebuttal by the accused.
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential to establish an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere allegations without evidence fail to sustain prosecution.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, and the prosecution must prove the demand of gratification beyond reasonable d....
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish corruption charges under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, with mere return of money not sufficient without es....
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be established beyond reasonable doubt to sustain charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond a reasonable doubt, and the invocation of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is essential for establishing the offen....
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe by public servants is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, established through testimonies and corroborative evidence.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribes is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money without evidence of demand does not establish an offence.
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.