Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Harnam Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of bribe demand and trap. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial charge, witnesses, and accused statement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. trial court acquittal for lack of corroboration. (Para 6) |
| 4. state and defense appeal arguments. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. limited interference in acquittal appeals. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. inconsistent informant and trap testimonies. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. demand proof essential for pc act conviction. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. appeal dismissed upholding trial acquittal. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.10.2012, passed by learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan
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....
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....
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.
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....
The central legal point established is that the demand for illegal gratification is a sine qua non for convicting an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove the....
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
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
