ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Anil Kumar, son of Late Madan Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Anti-Corruption Bureau – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under prevention of corruption act. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on demand and evidence credibility. (Para 11 , 13 , 15) |
| 3. court's affirmation of prosecution evidence credibility. (Para 12 , 18 , 19 , 37) |
| 4. legal principles on demand and acceptance proof. (Para 23 , 30 , 36) |
| 5. final decision and order. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 06.02.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, A.C.B., Dhanbad in Special (Vigilance) Case No.13 of 2012 (CNR No.JHDH01-006029-2012) whereby and where under, the learned court below has held 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. The appellant-convict has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period o
Behari Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar
B. Noha v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Bhupinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1988 SC 1011
Hazari Lal vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1980) 2 SCC 390
Khem Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh
M.O. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala
Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 8 SCC 136
Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujarat
Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.)
P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P.
Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra
Rajinder Pershad (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Darshana Devi (Smt.)
Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab
Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam
Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.)
State of Punjab v. Sohan Singh
State of A.P. v. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy (2000)9 SCC 752
State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh (AIR 1958 SC 500)
Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.
State of Gujarat v. Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi
State of Gujarat v. Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi & Ors.
State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh (dead) & Ors.
Sunil Kumar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
State of U.P. vs. Dr. G. K. Ghosh reported in AIR 1984 SC 1453
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.
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 ....
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.
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.