Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
A. Y. KOGJE
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
PRAVINBHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
1. This appeal by the State against the judgment and order dated 13.10.2008 by the Special Judge (ACB), Court No. 4, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2001 by which the respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 7 , 13(c) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The facts of the case is that ACB having received complaint of illegal amount being demanded and received at the Octroi Naka organized a trap by involving a decoy punch accompanying the truck driver from whom such demand was being made.
2.1. It appears that in the present case, the decoy punch had proceeded to Octroi Naka and had paid the amount of Octroi and an additional amount of Rs.20/- which was treated as the bribe money and as the entire amount including the bribe money was tainted. The trap was treated to be successf
The prosecution must prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of tainted money beyond reasonable doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, failing which acquittal is justified.
The demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and consistent and credible evidence is essential to establish the demand.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be established for an offence under the Prevention of Corr....
The demand for illegal gratification is a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment underscores the requirement for clear and consistent evidence to prove the elements of bribery, and the high standard for overturning an acquittal.
The judgment underscores the high standard of proof required in criminal cases, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the burden on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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 by a public servant as a fact in issue, and the credibility of witness testimony is crucial in establishing guilt.
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
Listen Article