Back
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
Debeswar Taukdar, S/o. Late Kameswar Talukdar – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, Represented by PP Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Parthivjyoti Saikia, J.
Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.
2. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam in Special Case No.11/2018.
3. The informant Sushil Patowary wanted to purchase the 42 Seater Star Bus. Therefore, on 14th December, 2015 at about 4.30 P.M., he went to the office of the Transport Commissioner, Guwahati for getting an “Assurance Letter” for procuring road permit. Mr. Patowary met the present appellant who was working there as the Senior Assistant.
4. The appellant allegedly demanded an amount of Rs.38,000/-as bribe for issuing the said “Assurance Letter”.
5. The informant Mr. Patowary, therefore, 07.12.2015 approached the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) Police Station by filing a written complaint.
6. Police registered the ACB P.S. Case No.15/2015 under Section 7/13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
7. Police laid a trap. Accordingly, on 07.12.2015, Mr. Patowary paid a cash amount of Rs.8,000/-the appellant and the police t
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of money without evidence of demand is insufficient.
Both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are required for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of bribe without proven demand fails to establish culpability....
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....
Requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act is critical for conviction; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) PC Act; mere recovery insufficient without proof, especially absent pending official work & with hostile sha....
Point of law : Once conviction is recorded under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it casts a social stigma on the person in the society apart from serious consequences on the servi....
Establishing demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; failure to prove these elements results in acquittal.
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.
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
