Back
S. V. PINTO
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Umesh Kantilal Amin – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.V. PINTO, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 01.03.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 7th Fast Track Court, Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special Case No. 166 of 1999, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(D)(1)(2)(3) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.C. Act’). The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused No. 1’ and ‘the accused No. 2” at they 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:
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 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 demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient for conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence i....
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.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and without clear, cogent, and reliable evidence of demand, no convicti....
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 demand and recovery of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt is essential for conviction under the P.C.Act.
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
