Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
SANJAY PARIHAR
Muhammad Shaban Wani – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY PARIHAR, J.
01. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.09.2004 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Anti- Corruption Srinagar, Kashmir, whereby the appellant was prosecuted in FIR No. 40/1986 under Section 5/2 of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, P.C. Act). Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence under Section 5/2 of the P.C. Act. Besides, the appellant was also held guilty of the offence under Section 161 RPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
02. Briefly stated, FIR No. 40/1986 was registered on 15.09.1986 by the Vigilance Organization Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as VOK) on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant. It was alleged that the appellant was approached by the complainant for issuance of a revenue extract, as the complainant intended to transfer 1½ kanals of land. It is alleged that for issuance of the said revenue extract, the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000/-, which was ultimately
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 illegal gratification and the recovery of tainted money beyond reasonable doubt to establish the offence of corruption.
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.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to convict under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of bribe 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....
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.
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.
To convict for bribery, both demand and voluntary acceptance must be proven; 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
