S. V. PINTO
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Dilubhai Narubhai Gadhavi – 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 against the judgment and order of acquittal in Special (ACB) Case No. 04 of 1998 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar camp at Khambhaliya on 18.03.2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.C. 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.
2. That the respondent No. 2 herein-original accused No. 2 has expired on 30.03.2019 and copy of death certificate has been produced on record and hence, the present appeal qua the respondent No. 2 stand abated and the present appeal survives qua the respondent No. 1 herein-original accused No. 1.
3. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
The necessity of proving the demand for illegal gratification as a crucial element to establish the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand is essential in corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of tainted currency notes without proof of demand is insufficient to establish an offence.
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....
A conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires unequivocal proof of demand and acceptance of bribes, which was not met in this case, leading to acquittal.
The demand for bribe money is essential to establish the offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove the initial demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof rests on the prosecution.
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....
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....
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.