Back
VIMAL K. VYAS
PRAVINBHAI BAVABHAI PATEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIMAL K. VYAS, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) at the instance of the appellant-convict (i.e. the original accused no. 1) and is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.06.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge and Presiding Officer, 15th Fast Track Court, Vadodara, in Special (ACB) Case No. 1 of 2002.
2. By the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the trial court held the present appellant-accused no. 1 guilty and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the ‘Corruption Act’). Consequently, the trial court sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.3,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
The prosecution version, in a nut-shell, is as follows:
3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as under:
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act can only be raised when foundational facts are establish....
The demand for illegal gratification is a prerequisite for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
Prevention of corruption -Demand of Bribe - Trap case - Recovery of tainted amount - Conviction set aside - Mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused.
Point of Law : Defence cannot be ballasted with the premise that Courts will, from the outset, be guarded against and suspicious of the testimony of trap witnesses.
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to substantiate a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of bribe money without proven dem....
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of bribe money without establishing demand is insufficient.
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....
Mere recovery of tainted notes without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance insufficient for conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) PC Act; demand is sine qua non, presumption under Section 20 ina....
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
