Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
Ganesh Ram Meena
Hukam Singh son of Nand Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan through, The P.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ganesh Ram Meena, J.
1. By filing instant criminal appeal under section 374 (2) CrPC, the accused appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.05.2001 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota (for short ‘the learned trial court’) in Sessions Case No.21/1998, State Vs. Vijay Prakash & Anr, whereby the learned trial court convicted him for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (For short ‘the Act of 1988’) and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for each offence and also fine of Rs.3,000/- for each.
2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that on 24.06.1996, complainant Ajay Madhwani (PW14) submitted a written report before the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kota to this effect that a licence of fire works has been issued on his name by the Collector, Kota which is renewed upto March 1997. His shop of fire works is situated Sripura, Sindhi Chowk. Today in the morning, Mr. Vijay Prakash Ji, who is Halka Dy.S.P of their area called him in the office. Complainant further mentione
Demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of money is insufficient.
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to substantiate a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of bribe money without proven dem....
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of currency notes is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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.
Prevention of corruption -Demand of Bribe - Trap case - Recovery of tainted amount - Conviction set aside - Mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which can be established through direct and circumstantial evidence.
Both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are required for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of bribe without proven demand fails to establish culpability....
Evidence of demand and acceptance is crucial for conviction in corruption cases; mere recovery of money is insufficient without proof of illegal gratification.
Point of law : Once conviction is recorded under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it casts a social stigma on the person in the society apart from serious consequences on the servi....
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
