Back
S. V. PINTO
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Daudbhai Bhikhabhai Rathod – 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 15.10.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Amreli (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 16 of 1998, whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (gh) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (herein after referred to as ‘the 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 of village Mota Ankadiya, District: Amreli and the complainant viz. Jitendra Lalbhai Patel had property bearing survey No. 137/1 and 137/2 situated in village Mota Ankadiya and the property was in the joint names of Shantaben-mother of the complainant and her brother Savjibhai Bhagvanbhai Kubhani. That the complainant wanted copies of mutation entries of the reve
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
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 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 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 ....
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
