Back
BIRENDRA KUMAR
C. P. Borana S/o Sh. B. S. Borana – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Birendra Kumar, J.
1. The sole petitioner is aggrieved by framing of charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 coupled with Section 120B of IPC by the order dated 09.10.2018 passed in Session Case No.20/2015 (19/2008).
2. The aforesaid Session Case arises out of FIR No.175/2006 registered on 26.06.2006 with ACB Pali/CPS, Jaipur for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution case is that on the relevant date i.e. 19.06.2006, the petitioner was posted as Manager at Jaitaran Kraya Vikrya Sahkari Samiti. Complainant-Babu Lal Gehlot had performed some contractual work of the Samiti and out of the total bill of Rs.3,87,571/-, Rs.2,30,000/- was already paid to him. Rs.1,37,571/- was still due and for release of that pending money, the petitioner was demanding Rs.70,000/- as bribe. After being harassed for several rounds to get the aforesaid amount released, the complainant agreed to pay Rs.60,000/- as final settlement. This incident took place on 19.06.2006.
3. On the same day, the complainant made a complaint to the Dy. S.P. of Anti Corruption Bureau, who verified the allegation. Conversations were recorded and the trap was a
The court established that evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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.
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 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 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 all the circumstances and events linking one another by producing evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
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
