Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Rajender Singh Sankhla S/o Shri Madan Singh Sankhla – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.05.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Anti-Corruption Act Cases Court, Bikaner, in Sessions Case No. 52/2006, whereby the appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced to undergo 1 year's imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, PW-4 Om Prakash Nayak, submitted a complaint dated 04.03.2005 before the Anti-Corruption Department, alleging that his wife had applied for a loan through Nagar Parishad, Bikaner, under a State Government scheme called POP. As per the scheme, she applied for the establishment of a grocery shop and was eligible for a loan of Rs.20,000/-, of which Rs.10,000/- was to be subsidized. It was alleged that the complainant contacted the appellant, who was a bank officer at the relevant time, to facilitate the loan, whereupon the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.1,500/- for doing the needful, and subsequently demanded Rs
A conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires clear proof of both demand and acceptance of a bribe, which was not established in this case.
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery without evidence of bribe demand is insufficient.
Proof of demand is essential for establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery without proof of demand cannot lead to conviction.
Proof of demand is essential for establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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....
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.
The necessity of proving both demand and acceptance of bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act for a conviction, emphasizing that mere acceptance of tainted money is insufficient without evidenc....
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 ....
The necessity of proving both demand and acceptance of bribe as sine qua non for establishing offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with the requirement for proper certification of e....
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
