Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Ramniwas S/o Shri Ramchandra Meena – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 01.12.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases No.1, Udaipur, in Special Sessions Case No.05/2011 (CIS No.55/2014) by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo one year SI along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Baleshwar lodged a report before the Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB Banswara stating inter-alia that he applied for sanction of personal loan before the Bank of Baroda, Branch Paloda, Banswara in the month of August, 2009, where Shri B.L. Meena was posted as Manager and for sanction of Rs.1 lac personal loan, he demanded Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification. The complainant also talked to the Bank clerk Ramniwas (present appellant), who also demanded the same amount. Upon this complaint, verification of demand was got done on 10.09.2009 from the appellant and on 11.09.2009 from Babu Lal Meena, co-accused. Thereafter, on 14.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Illegal gratification – Allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond reasonable doubt – Mere possession or recovery of currency notes is ....
Demand and acceptance of bribery must be proven for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which can be established through circumstantial evidence.
The demand for illegal gratification is essential to constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to establish guilt without proof ....
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....
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential to establish an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere allegations without evidence fail to sustain prosecution.
The judgment establishes the high standard of proof required to establish the offence of illegal gratification by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, emphasizing the need t....
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....
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
