Back
BIRENDRA KUMAR
Anil Kumar S/o Shri Bhoop Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Both the petitioners above named are accused in Sessions Case No. 1/2017 arising out of FIR No. 321/2014 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, Sriganganagar. The petitioners are aggrieved by refusal of their prayer, by the learned trial Judge, to discharge them by order 9.02.2018 and framing of charges for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Respondent no. 2 Kashi Ram filed a complaint before ACB, Sriganganagar stating therein that respondent no. 2/complainant was a driver in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. He was found guilty in a disciplinary proceeding and punishment was to be awarded against him by the Chief Manager of the Department where proceeding was pending. The complainant appeared before the Chief Manager Sukhram Kadwasara (co-accused). Petitioner Om Prakash was a Lower Division Clerk working in the office of General Manager. The complainant met Om Prakash, who after going through the records of the departmental proceedings talked to the Chief Manager and informed to the complainant that if the complainant pays Rs.22,000/-, lessor punishm
The necessity of proving both demand and acceptance of bribe to establish charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act was emphasized.
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.
At the charge framing stage, the court assesses whether a prima facie case exists, focusing on the allegations rather than the proof of guilt.
The necessity of proving demand for illegal gratification and mutual agreement in conspiracy is essential for framing charges under the relevant provisions.
At the charge framing stage, only a prima facie case needs to be established, without detailed examination of evidence.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money cannot establish charges without evidence of demand.
The court upheld the trial court's decision to frame charges, emphasizing that only a prima facie case is required at this stage, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.
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.
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
