Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
G. SATAPATHY
Parameswar Nanda Goswami – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha (Vigilance) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on demand and acceptance of bribe. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendant's denial and alleged forced acceptance of bribe. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. trial court's reliance on witness testimony and evidence. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 4. review of additional evidence for demand and acceptance. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. legal standards for proving bribery charges. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. appeal outcome leading to acquittal of the accused. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.07.2014 passed by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Mayurbhanj at Baripada in TC No.4 of 2013 convicting the appellant for offences punishable U/Ss.7/13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short “the Act”) and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof, to undergo further RI for three months on each count, the appellant named above has preferred this appeal.
3. In the trial, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses vide PWs.1 to 6 and proved certain documents under Exts.1 to 14 as well as identified material objects under MOI-VII in evidence as against t
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 conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires unequivocal proof of demand and acceptance of bribe; merely recovering money does not suffice if the demand is unproven.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe must be established beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of money is insufficient.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe as a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence beyond the complainant's testimony....
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 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 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....
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
