S. V. PINTO
Bhogilal Punjiram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special ACB Case No. 1 of 2006 on 30.10.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant to two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as “the PC Act” for short) and two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
The appellant 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 an ASI in Vadnagar Police Station at Vadnagar, District Mehsana and was a public servant and the complainant had filed M Case No. 1/2005 befor
B. Hayaraj Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55.
Hari Dev Sharma Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in (1977) 3 SCC 352.
Kishorchand Mansukhlal Joshi Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1985 GLH 103.
Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in (1979) 4 SCC 725.
N. Vijayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 3 SCC 687.
K. Shanthamma Vs. State of Telangana reported in (2022) 4 SCC 574.
Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1979) 4 SCC 172.
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1997) 7 SCC 622
Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248.
Raj Rajendra Singh Seth Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in (2008) 11 SCC 681.
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 for a conviction 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 the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance as crucial elements for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the requirement of valid sanction for prosecution is essential. Lack o....
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.
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.