Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SUSHIL KUKREJA
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Chand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution's bribery trap factual background (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. parties' arguments on evidence appreciation (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. witness testimonies on demand and recovery (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. demand proof sine qua non for pc act offences (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. independent witnesses essential in trap cases (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 31) |
| 6. no presumption without proved demand (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 7. acquittal upheld for prosecution failure (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment, dated 15.06.2016, passed by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Corruption Case No. 4/1 of 2012, whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted under Section 7 read with Section13(i)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the ‘PC Act’).
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under:
2(a). On and before 26.05.2011, accused-Ramesh Chand, was posted at Patwar Circle
Mere recovery of tainted notes without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance insufficient for conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) PC Act; demand is sine qua non, presumption under Section 20 ina....
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to convict under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of bribe money is insufficient.
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.
When clouds of doubt arises on the part of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt is always accrued on the part of the accused alone, which is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery syste....
In bribery trap cases, proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of gratification is essential; mere recovery of tainted notes insufficient amid material witness contradictions, absent shadow witness ....
Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) PC Act; mere recovery insufficient without proof, especially absent pending official work & with hostile sha....
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
