Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
BIRENDRA KUMAR
Vijay Kumar Singhal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
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
A valid sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be granted after thorough examination of all relevant facts and materials by the sanctioning authority; failure to do so c....
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.
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery without evidence of bribe demand is insufficient.
Illegal gratification – Order of sanction can also be proved by examining a witness who can identify signatures of sanctioning authority – Whether accused had competence or not cannot be an important....
Illegal gratification – Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would come into operation only when there is no nexus between demand and action performed – But, when fact of receipt of payme....
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....
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
Listen Article