S. V. PINTO
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Alarakhbhai Suvalibhai 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 dated 25.11.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Bhavnagar (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special (ACB) Case No. 6 of 1997, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption 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.15 of 1996 was filed by complainant Bhavnaben Damjibhai Bundeliya on 10.10.1996 against accused mainly stating that she was working as an Administrator in the ‘Midday Meal Scheme’ at Gariyadhar, District Bhavnagar and the accused had come for a surprise inspection on 07.09.1996 and at that time, the complainant was not present as she had taken leave from the Principal and had gone home. That the accused took note of the same and initiated ac
Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of T.N. [(2002) 9 SCC 639
Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1248
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 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 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.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.