Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Hagami Lal Kumawat s/o Madhu lal Kumawat – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Farjand Ali, J.
Grievance
1. By way of filing the instant appeal, the appellant assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.10.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (Sessions Court) for P.C. Act Cases, Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 16/2009, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo two years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and, in default thereof, to further undergo two months’ additional imprisonment, which judgment and sentence are arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be quashed and set aside.
Facts of the Case
2. The brief facts of the present appeal are that on 03.07.2008, the complainant Bapu Lal submitted a handwritten complaint before the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti- Corruption Bureau, Banswara. In the said complaint, he alleged that an FIR had earlier been lodged at Police Station Kalinjara by one Anita D/o Nangu, accusing his younger brother Suresh S/o Shambhu Lal, resident of Makadichor, of kidnapping and committing rape. In connection with the said case, the then Station House Officer,
The required proof of demand for illegal gratification under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not established, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery without evidence of bribe demand is insufficient.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; failure to comply with procedural requirements and evidential standards results in acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential, but inferential deductions can be made in the absence of direct evidence.
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
