Back
S. V. PINTO
Parmar Chinubhai Mohanbhai – 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 dated 06.06.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, (ACB), Mehsana (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 2 of 1999, whereby, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default one month simple imprisonment under Section 7 of the the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default six months simple imprisonment for Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 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 Talati
The demand for illegal gratification is a prerequisite for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
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 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 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 both the demand and acceptance of bribes beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
The demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential elements to establish an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove these elements beyond reasonab....
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.
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
