Back
S. V. PINTO
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Vitthalji Kanaji Makwana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
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 Case No. 29 of 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) on 07.04.2004 (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as ‘the P.C.Act’). The respondent 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 FIR No.I-C.R.No.11 of 1996 was filed by the complainant Chamanji Kalaji Thakor on 23.08.1996 before the ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) against the accused mainly stating that the accused was working as an unarmed police constable in Sector-7 Police Station in August, 1996 and 15 days prior to 23.08.1996, the accused had stopped the complainant when he was going on his scooter and checked his scoote
The presumption of innocence, comprehensive appreciation of evidence, and the legal requirements for proving demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant under the Prevention of....
The judgment emphasizes the presumption of innocence, the requirement for comprehensive appreciation of evidence, and the need to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a fact in iss....
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.
In cases of acquittal, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and major contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence can lead to the acquittal being upheld....
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the court has the power to re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal.
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 prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
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
