Back
S. V. PINTO
Kachrabhai Mohanbhai Solanki – 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 25.03.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 1), Narmada @ Rajpipla (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 6 of 2006, 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 (herein after referred to as ‘the P.C. Act’). The learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for ninety days for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act. The learned trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused No. 2 Rakeshbhai Bhanabhai Tadvi for all the offenses and was pleased to further order that the sentences of the accused No. 1 were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant an
The demand for illegal gratification is a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
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 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....
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 beyond reasonable doubt is essential for conviction under the P.C.Act.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption 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
