Back
BIRENDRA KUMAR
Rajesh Kumar Meel, S/o. Shri Raju Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP. – Respondent
ORDER :
(Birendra Kumar, J.) :
1. Petitioner Rajesh Kumar Meel is aggrieved by refusal of prayer for discharge under Section 227 CrPC by order dated 01.06.2022 passed in Sessions Case No.16/2017. By the impugned order, the learned trial judge, after rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, has ordered for framing of charges under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 120 B of the IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that on 10.09.2013, respondent No.2 Shubhash Kumar made a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bikaner that on 30.08.2013, the complainant was carrying diesel on a truck. In the midway, the petitioner, an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer along with his driver and two others, stopped the vehicle and asked about what is there in the container. The complainant responded that he was carrying diesel. The petitioner asked for bill of purchase of the diesel which was not with the complainant. Then, the petitioner threatened him that since the complainant was engaged in illegal business he will seize his vehicle. On request of the complainant the petitioner let the vehicle go as the complainant had agreed to pay Rs.80,000/-
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 necessity of proving both demand and acceptance of bribe to establish charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act was emphasized.
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 bribes is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money without evidence of demand does not establish an offence.
The necessity of proving demand for illegal gratification and mutual agreement in conspiracy is essential for framing charges under the relevant provisions.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, and the prosecution must prove the demand of gratification beyond reasonable d....
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of proving demand and establishing the essential ingredients of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
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
