MARLI VANKUNG
C. Lalfakawma, S/o. C. Thangkhuma (L) – Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Marli Vankung, J.)
Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondents and Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Mizoram Lokayukta.
2. This is an appeal filed against the Judgment Order dated 04.09.2023,passed by the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Aizawl, Mizoram in ACB PS Case No. 001 of 2022 dated 28.02.2022, convicting the appellant under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (a) and (b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (2018 Amendment) and u/s Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the sentence order dated 05.09.2023, sentencing him to undergo two (2) years imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default another imprisonment of six (6) months under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and imprisonment for four (4) years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default another imprisonment of six (6) months under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (2018 Amendment). Both of the terms sentence, except fine, are to run concurrently.
3. Brief facts of the ca
N. Raghavender Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Vasant Rao Guhe Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT in Delhi)
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed criminal breach of trust and had dishonest intention to misappropriate public property.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a public servant can be held liable for criminal misconduct and breach of trust under relevant legal provisions, and the court has the discret....
The prosecution must prove all the essential elements of an offence beyond a reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction.
The judgment establishes the importance of proving foundational facts and providing substantial evidence to support allegations in a corruption case.
Misappropriation by a public servant requires proof of entrustment and dishonest intention, both established here, confirming guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.
Convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act require valid sanctions; without them, trials are void as established through insufficient evidence and lack of corroboration for forgery and conspi....
Revisional jurisdiction under CrPC 401 limited; no evidence re-appreciation unless miscarriage of justice. Conviction under IPC 409 for Property Clerk's misappropriation upheld on entrustment proof v....
Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which was duly established in this case.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The accused was convicted for misappropriating public funds by failing to account for money entrusted to her, establishing criminal breach of trust and corrupt practices under the relevant sections.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.