Back
S. V. PINTO
Jagannath Ramrao Patil – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, ACB, Surat (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special ACB Case No. 2 of 1998 on 30.10.2006, whereby, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act”).
1.2 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 Unarmed Head Constable in the Traffic Branch, Surat City and was a public servant. That the complainant Mr. L.J. Merunjai, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, Surat had received information that the traffic police were illegally demanding bribes from vehicles in the name of entry fee and the complainant – Police Inspector – Mr. L.J. Merunjai decided to arrange for a decoy trap. That on 15.07.1997, the driver of truck bearing
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 judgment underscores the fundamental legal principle that the prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and that suspicion alone cannot lead to a conviction.
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 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 demand for illegal gratification is essential for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
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
