Back
SUBHASH CHAND
Ajit Kumar Tigga @ Ajit Tigga, son of Sri Anand Tigga – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Inspector of Police Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Chand, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 01.06.2011 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 7/01(D), whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act each along with fine of Rs. 5000/- under each Section and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo R.I. for six months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Criminal Appeal are that the complainant, Mritunjay Kumar Singh, son of Sri Shree Singh, R/o Ghanoodih, P.O. Jharia, P.S. Tisra, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) lodged a written complaint in Hindi on 11.07.2001 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Dhanbad alleging therein that the accused, Ajit Kumar Tigga, clerk in the office of General Manager, Telephones, BSNL, Dhanbad had demanded a sum of Rs.2000/- from him as illegal gratification for proc
The conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which was established in this case.
The essential elements of proving corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act include establishing a clear demand for illegal gratification and its subsequent acceptance by the public servant.
Establishment of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is crucial for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, leading to a rebuttable presumption of guilt regarding the motive beh....
Illegal gratification – Allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond reasonable doubt – Mere possession or recovery of currency notes is ....
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.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt to establish the guilt of the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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
