Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
Gobind Swaroop Parwani – Appellant
Versus
State Nct Of Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of facts leading to the conviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellant regarding the prosecution's case. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court's analysis of contradictory testimonies. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 4. final judgment and acquittal of the appellant. (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the first accused (A1) in C.C.No. 38/1999 on the file of the Court of Special Judge, Delhi challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(the PC Act).
2. The prosecution case is that on 18.03.1996, A1 while working as Junior Engineer in the Commercial Estate Branch of DDA at Vikas Sadan, in collusion with the second accused, (A2), W/C(R), Mate, DDA, demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000 from PW8 for not demolishing the boundary wall of his shop bearing No. 14, A-1 Market, Lawrence Road, Delhi, and later agreed to accept Rs. 2,000 as bribe.
3. On 18.03.1996, PW8 lodged a complaint, that is, Ext. PW6/A, with the Anti-
Insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies resulted in the acquittal of the appellant; essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of bribe must be established beyond reasona....
To secure conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, both demand and acceptance of a bribe must be proved. The absence of sufficient evidence to establish demand results in acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
In bribery cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and accepted bribes, otherwise conviction cannot be upheld.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe as a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence beyond the complainant's testimony....
The lack of proof of demand for illegal gratification is a crucial factor in determining the conviction under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act.
When clouds of doubt arises on the part of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt is always accrued on the part of the accused alone, which is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery syste....
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
