Back
S. V. PINTO
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Joitaram Khushaldas Patel – 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 30.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tack Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Gandhinagar (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 3 of 2001, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as they stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
1.1. During the pendency of the appeal the respondent No. 2 has expired on 19.05.2010 and hence the appeal qua the respondent No. 2 was abated by an order dated 23.02.2024.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1. That the accused No. 1 Joitaram Khusalbhai Patel was working as a Talati-cum-Mantri (Class-III) in the Sametri Gram- Panchayat and the accused No. 2 Chinubhai Mangaji Thakore was the sarpanch and both the accused were public servant. That late Chhagani Khodaji
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 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 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 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....
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
