Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
GANESH RAM MEENA
Nannu Mal Pahadia S/o Chhote Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. – Respondent
Order :
GANESH RAM MEENA, J.
1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the accused petitioner under section 528 of the BNSS with the prayer to quash the FIR No. 0140/2022 dated 25.04.2022 registered at Police Station CPS, ACB, Jaipur, District ACB O.P. Alwar-I, for the offences punishable under sections 7, 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act of 2018 (for short ‘the amendment Act of 2018’) and 120B IPC, the charge-sheet No.188/2022 dated 15.06.2022 submitted by the ACB before the competent Court and further the criminal Misc. Case No./00000010/2024 pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Alwar (Raj.).
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.04.2022 complainant Iqbal Singh, who is Power of Attorney Holder for KCC Buildcon Private Limited (for short ‘the Company’) submitted a complaint before the Addl. Superintendent of Police, ACB, Alwar with the averments that he is looking after the road construction work for the company as regards Delhi-Badodra Expressway Green Field. It has been further stated in the complaint that the District Collector, Alwar, Nannu Mal Pahadia (petitioner) and the Land Settlement Officer Mr. As
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribes is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money without evidence of demand does not establish an offence.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be established beyond reasonable doubt to sustain charges 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.
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential to establish charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere possession of tainted currency does not constitute an offence.
Requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act is critical for conviction; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential to establish offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient fo....
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money cannot establish charges without evidence of demand.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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
