Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Vivek Garg – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the complaint against the respondent concerns alleged fraud related to medical reimbursements. (Para 1) |
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (4) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “ Cr.P.C .”), has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant, Sh. Vivek Garg, Advocate, against the Judgment dated 21.03.2022 of the Ld. ACMM, New Delhi, whereby Respondent No.2, Akhilesh Pati Tripathi, MLA has been acquitted in the Complaint Case No.4/2019 under Section 420 /468/409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”).
2. The Appellant, Sh. Vivek Garg stated that he is an Advocate and RTI Activist who is fighting against corruption at all levels due to corrupt nexus of fulcrum of evils who are looting the country worst than the British. He had filed one such Complaint Section 200 Cr.P.C . against the Respondent No.2, Akhilesh Pati Tripathi, MLA from Model Town Constituency since 08.12.2013.
3. The allegations are that being an MLA and a public servant, he was entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses from Government of NCT of Delhi in regard to the treatment obt
Prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not required for elected officials; mere inadvertence does not establish cheating.
A charge of cheating under S.420, IPC requires deception and fraudulent intent which were not established in this case.
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to a lack of valid sanction and insufficient evidence of guilt, emphasizing the necessity of the Sanctioning Authority's application of mind.
Prior sanction is mandatory for prosecuting public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 Cr.P.C.
Sanction for prosecution of public servants must reflect independent assessment; repeated refusals by the authority, absent new evidence, undermine legitimacy of prosecution.
A valid sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires the Sanctioning Authority to apply its mind to all relevant facts, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; trivial amounts may not negate liability if corrupt intent is established.
Subjective satisfaction of the Commissioner on disgraceful conduct justifies disqualification without a conviction under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats 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
