Back
BIRENDRA KUMAR
Subodh Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has sought for quashment of FIR No. 217/2016 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, Police Station District Jaipur for offences under Section 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as under Section 120-B of the IPC.
2. The challenge is on the ground that ingredients of none of the offences for which FIR has been registered are made out and the criminal prosecution is abuse of the process of law.
3. The prosecution case is that the informer of the Anti Corruption Bureau reported to its Inspector Vikram Singh that officers of SPML Infra company in collusion with officers of PHED Department of the Government are acting in corrupt manner to provide undue benefit to the company. Thereafter, mobile No. 9414043976 of Mr. Keshav Gupta, Vice President of SPML Company and Mobile No. 9711308200 of Mr. Rishab Setty, the Managing Director of the said Company were put on surveillance and what was gathered from the talk between the two, on the very next day i.e. 19.7.2016, Mr. Akashdeep Totla and Mr. Praful Moreshwar Sontake, both the employees of the company aforesaid, were put on vigil. The team of ACB noticed that Akashdeep Totl
The absence of evidence for bribery and corruption led to the quashment of the FIR, emphasizing the necessity of substantiating allegations in corruption cases.
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.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.
A FIR initiates criminal proceedings without needing specific role attribution; sufficient evidence during investigation upholds its validity, especially in corruption cases.
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....
Mere retraction of the informant's statement in a departmental proceeding is not sufficient ground to quash an F.I.R. under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The court held that allegations of bribery against a public servant, supported by video evidence, constitute a cognizable offence, and FIRs should not be quashed unless they are patently absurd or do....
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
