Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Ram Nath – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. patwari demanded bribe for mutation and certificate. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. trial court convicted on recovery and presumption. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. mutation completed before alleged bribe demand. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. state relies on section 20 presumption. (Para 12) |
| 5. section 7 unmet; work pre-dated demand. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. bribe improbable after official act completion. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. no witness proof of demand. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. demand sine qua non for pc act. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 9. contradictions discredit trap evidence. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 10. presumption inapplicable absent demand proof. (Para 35 , 36) |
| 11. accused acquitted; appeal allowed. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 31.3.2012 and order of sentence dated 2.4.2012, passed by learned Special Judge, Kullu & Lahaul Spiti, Districts at Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the appellant (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted and sentenced as under: -
| Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Ac |
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....
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 ....
Proof of demand and voluntary acceptance essential for conviction under Sections 7/13(2) PC Act; mere tainted money recovery insufficient. Appellate interference in acquittal only if perverse or unre....
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....
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.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
The conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires unequivocal proof of demand and acceptance of bribe; merely recovering money does not suffice if the demand is unproven.
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
