ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Ratneshwar Sharma, S/o -Late Janak Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation, Ranchi – Respondent
ORDER :
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
2. The appellant-convict has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 16.04.2014, passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I.(A.C.B), Ranchi in R.C. Case No. 05(A)/2009- AHD-R whereby and where under the learned court below has held the appellant-convict guilty for the offences punishable under Section 7 and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence committed under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause of undergoing Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the appellant-convict has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default clause of undergoing Rigorous Imprisonment for three months, if the fine amount is not paid and it has also been ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. The brief facts of th
A. Subair v. State of Kerala [(2009) 6 SCC 587 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 85]
C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI [(2009) 3 SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1]
Gurjant Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 8 SCC 650
Mukut Bihari and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 11 SCC 642
Krishna Bihari Singh v. State of Jharkhand reported in 2007 (1) JLJR 14
Meena v. State of Maharashtra [(2000) 5 SCC 21 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 878]
Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra [(1979) 4 SCC 526 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 121]
Rajendra Sharma vs. The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. reported in 2011 (2) JLJR 434
Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab [(1972) 3 SCC 652 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 696 : AIR 1973 SC 498]
Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 4 SCC 725 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 159 : AIR 1979 SC 1408]
State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede [(2009) 15 SCC 200 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 385]
State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao [(2011) 6 SCC 450 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1010 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 714]
T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 401]
The evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Ac....
Establishing demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; failure to prove these elements results in acquittal.
The evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe money, when unchallenged, is sufficient to establish the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.