Back
S. V. PINTO
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Mahendra Nagindas Dapkawala – 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 (Corruption) Case No. 36 of 2002 (Old Case No. 7 of 1999) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 1st Fast Track Court, Bhavnagar (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’ for short) on 07.10.2005. The respondent hereinafter are referred to as ‘the accused’ as they 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:
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, comprehensive appreciation of evidence, and the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases.
A presumption of innocence accompanies acquittal; the prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt.
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 the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.
Point of law: So far as the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is concerned, it trite that even the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can be drawn only if an accused person has accep....
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
