ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Jyotirmoy Ganguly son of late C. H. Ganguly – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the parties.
2. The appellant-convict has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of Sentence dated 29.08.2003 passed by learned Special Judge C.B.I.-Cum-4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.2A/88 D whereby and where under the learned court below has held the appellant-convict guilty of having committed the offences punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment of two months each and it was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that while the appellant-convict was posted as Accounts Assistant in the Bhowra area of B.C.C.L., he demanded bribe of Rs.50/- from the complainant (P.W.3) for payment of the bill amount
N. Vijayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra
D. Sriniviasan Vs. Delhi Special Police Establishment etc.
Hazari Lal vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Prakash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration)
M.O. Shamsudhin vs. State of Kerala
State of Bihar Vs. Basawan Singh
Rajesh Singh & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.
B. Noha v. State of Kerala & Anr.
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy
Tarsem Lal Vs. State of Haryana
State of Gujarat v. Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi & Ors., (2018) 9 SCC 242
State of U.P. vs. Dr. G. K. Ghosh
Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi)
Khem Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh
State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh (dead) & Ors.
Rajinder Pershad (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Darshana Devi (Smt.)
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....
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.
The proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for establishing the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove the case beyond all reason....
The court affirmed that a valid sanction and credible evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes are essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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.