Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Bolendra Nath Brahma, S/o. Sri Narendra Nath Brahma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam, Represented By The Learned Public Prosecutor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. description of the factual background and charges (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on the role of petitioners and lack of evidence (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. legal standards for proving bribery and corruption (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's analysis of evidence regarding the petitioners (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. final judgment regarding quashing proceedings (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.
By way of this application under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023, the petitioners are seeking quashment of the Kokrajhar P.S. Charge Sheet No.218/2024 dated 30.11.2024 originating from the F.I.R. No.0120/2018 dated 22.03.2018 registered at Kokrajhar Police Station and the entire proceedings in Special Case No.22/2025 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Assam at Guwahati for offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The factual background leading to the present Criminal Petition as projected may be set out as hereunder. On 20.03.2018, two individuals, namely, Rehu Narzary and Shahadat Hussain submitted a complaint to the Director General of Civil Defence & Commandant General of Homeguards, Assam at Guwahati representing themselves as the Pr
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is essential to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, requiring direct or circumstantial evidence to supp....
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential under the Prevention of Corruption Act; absence of such evidence warrants quashing of FIR.
Charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act require a pending official duty and a clear demand for gratification, which were not present in this case.
The court held that mere possession of cash does not constitute bribery without evidence of demand or acceptance, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
A private individual cannot be prosecuted under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act without the involvement of a public servant as a co-accused.
Prior sanction is mandatory for prosecuting public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 Cr.P.C.
The judgment establishes the importance of proving dishonest intention and specific charges in a criminal trial, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be established beyond reasonable doubt to sustain charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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
