S. V. PINTO
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Keshavji Lakhmanbhai Dobariya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.11.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Tack Court No. 6, Gondal (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 3 of 2000, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1. That the accused was working as a Talati-cum-Mantri (Class-III) in the Patidar Gram-Panchayat and was a public servant and at that time the complainant Rameshbhai Devajibhai Vekariya, who residing at Vaniyavad, Sheri No 1, Flat No. 10, Divya Apartment, Rajkot had purchased agricultural land situated in Kolithad village. The name of the complainant was required to be mutated in the revenue record and when the complainant went to meet the accused, the accused dem
V. Sejappa Vs. State By Police Inspector Lokayukta, Chitradurga
Mukut Bihari and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
State through Inspector of Police
T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. (2006) 1 SCC 401
Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248
The judgment emphasizes the need to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the requirement for direct or circumstantial evidence and the presum....
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.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing ....
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 illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient for conviction.
The demand for illegal gratification is a prerequisite for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
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....
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.