Back
S. V. PINTO
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Vilasbhai Jangeshbhai Patel – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.V. Pinto, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-State under Section 378(1)(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, 4th Fast Track Court, Surat (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in Special (ACB) Case No. 57 of 1996 on 31/08/2005, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), (1)(2)(3) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as "the PC Act" for short). 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:
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.
A presumption of innocence accompanies acquittal; the prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue, and the credibility of witness testimony is crucial in establishing guilt.
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, comprehensive appreciation of evidence, and the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a fact in issue, and the presumption of innocence must be upheld. A thorough appreciation of evidence is required befo....
The judgment underscores the fundamental legal principle that the prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and that suspicion alone cannot lead to a conviction.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient for conviction.
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
