BIRENDRA KUMAR
Bharat Lal Saini – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has sought for quashment of FIR No. 288/2022 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, Chowki, Tonk for offences under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short P.C. Act) read with Section 120-B IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that respondent No.2 Hanish Mohammad lodged a complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau alleging therein that Khasra No. 765 area 2.04 Hectare is recorded in the name of mother of respondent No.2 situated in village Ratwai Patwar, Tehsil Todaraisingh District Tonk. Respondent No.2 was cleaning the land for developing as a residential colony by carving out different small plots to sale it to the willing person. On 15.7.2022, Dinesh Sainai, P.A. of the petitioner went there and asked not to proceed with the work unless they got permission of the petitioner who was Chairman of the Municipal Corporation, Todaraisingh at the relevant time. Thereafter, the complainant met the petitioner and the petitioner asked for Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs) to not to interfere with the work of the informant. Since respondent No.2 was not willing to bribe the public servant, he lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau and the A
The court established that a demand for a bribe must be directly related to the performance of public duty for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act to be applicable.
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.
The court affirmed that individuals executing public duties for public entities can be classified as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, broadening the scope of accountability and....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific and credible evidence to establish the commission of a cognizable offence, especially in cases involving allegations of....
The offense of bribery under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is established through demand and acceptance, regardless of whether the work is completed or the interest of the bribe giver....
Point of Law : Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, High Court would have to proceed entirely on basis of allegations made in complaint or documents accompanying same per se....
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential under the Prevention of Corruption Act; absence of such evidence warrants quashing of FIR.
The Prevention of Corruption Act encompasses both public servants and private individuals in corruption-related offences, allowing for prosecution of those who aid or abet corrupt practices.
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.
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.