Back
A. Y. KOGJE
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
VAIBHAVSINH BALVANTSINH CHAUHAN – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 19.07.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 4, Nadiad in Session Case No. 10 of 2004. By the aforesaid judgment and order, the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charges for offense under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(1)(2)(3) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. The offense was registered being C.R. No. 13 of 2003 with Nadiad ACB Police Station on 18.10.2003 with an allegation that the respondent who was discharging his duty as a Jailer in the District Jail, Nadiad being a public servant had demanded a bribe for release of the relatives of the complainant, who were detained in PASA and ordered by this Court to be released. In this connection, charge-sheet was filed on 09.04.2004.
3. It is the case of the State that sufficient evidence was established on record to meet with the ingredients of sections for which the respondent was charged, still the Special Court has committed an error in acquitting the respondent-accused.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor su
The demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and consistent and credible evidence is essential to establish the demand.
[The necessity of proving the demand for bribe as a fundamental requirement for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the importance of independent witness testimony in establishing ....
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....
The prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be established for an offence under the Prevention of Corr....
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt to establish the guilt of the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases; failure to do so results in acquittal.
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
