Back
S. V. PINTO
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Prajajan Bhupatbhai Gordhanbhai – 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 (ACB) Case No.18 of 1997 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar on 28.11.2006 (herein after referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 7, 10, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as ‘the P.C.Act’). The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as they stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. That the respondent No.3 herein – original accused No.3 has expired on 26.09.2009 and thereafter, the respondent No.2 herein – original accused No.2 has expired on 26.05.2013 and copies of death certificates have been produced on record and hence, the present appeal qua the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 stand abated and the present appeal survives qua the respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 6 herein – original accused Nos.1 and 4 to 6.
3. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are
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 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.
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 burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish demand and acceptance of illegal gratification 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
