Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.
Gopi Chand – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1987
Decided On : 21-02-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appellant's conviction and sentencing. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. detailed account of prosecution's allegations and proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. appellant's defense arguments against conviction. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's reasoning and decision on appeal. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. court’s final order and directives post-appeal. (Para 14 , 15) |
ORDER :
1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment & order dated 31.03.1987 passed by learned Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 1/1985, whereby appellant was convicted for the offence(s) punishable under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced as under:
| U/s 161 IPC | One year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. |
| U/s 5(1) (d) r/w Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 | One year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment |
2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. As per story of the prosecution, on 03.02.1984 complainant Salim lodged a written report (EX.P2) with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.D., Sikar alleging therein that he was posted as a peon at Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Ayurvedic 'A' Grade Hospital, Sikar. He was transferred to the office of Deputy Director, Ayurvedic Department at Jaipur. From this office he was transferred to the office of District Ayurvedic Officer, Sikar. His service record was received in the office of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Ayurvedic 'A' Grade Hospital, Sikar where the accused Gopi Chand was working as a clerk. Letters were being received in the office of the aforesaid hospital from the office of the District Ayurvedic Officer at Sikar. But the service roll of the complainant Salim was detained by the accused for non-payment of sum of Rs.30/- which was demanded by the accused from the Salim for sending his service roll to his office. The accused suppressed the letter dated 07.12.1983. On 03.02.1984, the complainant again gave an application for sending his service roll to the Senior Physician of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government 'A' Class Hospital, Sikar and that application was given to accused Gopi Chand for sending the record and when he met Gopi Chand for sending the record he told that unless Rs.30/- are paid as bribe he would not send the record.
4. The report was presented by complainant Salim to the Sub- Inspector of Police at the out post A.C.D. at Sikar and information to this effect was given to the A.C.D. Headquarters at Jaipur whereupon the Police Squad with two Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prahlad Singh PW-9 and Mangilal PW-11 were sent to Sikar. They reached Sikar on the night of 03.02.1984 at about 11:30 PM. On the next day i.e. 04.02.1984 at about 11 AM, Salim attended the office of A.C.D. Sikar. Trap proceedings were conducted. Thereafter, the hands and pocket of the accused were washed. The accused was arrested. A recovery memo Ex.P4 was prepared.
5. After completion of trap proceedings and investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.
6. After hearing the arguments, charges were framed against the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
7. Accused appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed for trial.
8. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. Appellant examined 8 witnesses in his defence.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial court wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corrupti
The absence of evidence proving demand and acceptance of a bribe is critical for conviction under corruption laws.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the lack of evidence benefiting the accused in the cross-examination can uphold a conviction.
The required proof of demand for illegal gratification under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not established, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.
The prosecution must prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of tainted money beyond reasonable doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, failing which acquittal is justified.
Illegal gratification - Suspension order confirmed - Prosecution version establishes the demand, and acceptance of illegal gratification and recovery of tainted money recovered from the appellant, a ....
The appellate court can reverse an acquittal if evidence of bribery and the demand for illegal payments is established beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing that both parties bear the burden in a plea....
The evidence must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe to sustain conviction 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
