Back
BIRENDRA KUMAR
Vijay Kumar Singhal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Birendra Kumar, J. - The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 352 dated 20.12.2028 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur Police Station for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. As per FIR, the petitioner was Assistant Drug Controller on the date of incident. The petitioner allegedly demanded Rs.50,000/- from complainant Kuldeep Singh for renewal of his expired drug licence. Kuldeep Singh made a complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau on 11.12.2019. The Anti Corruption Bureau confidentially verified the allegation of Kuldeep Singh on 17.12.2018. Conversation between the petitioner and Kuldeep was taken on record and the authorities decided to have a trap of the petitioner. Different notes of Rs. 500/- denomination total Rs. 20,000/- were put under Sodium Carbonate and other chemicals and the petitioner was caught while accepting bribe on 19.12.2018. After completion of investigation, the authorities obtained sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The said sanction order dated 23.6.2021 is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Mr. Manish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that la
Insufficient corroborative evidence and invalid prosecution sanction rendered conviction unsustainable.
The court established that evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court emphasized that mere acceptance of a bribe is insufficient for conviction without proving the demand; prosecution must establish essential elements beyond reasonable doubt.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a valid sanction for prosecution under Sec. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the importance of independent witness....
The court held that while it can review sanctions for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, disputed facts must be resolved in criminal court, not through writ jurisdiction.
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery without evidence of bribe demand is insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of the sanction granted under Section 19 of the PC Act is crucial, and any irregularity in the sanction order, if gross in nature....
The evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Ac....
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
