Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
D.DASH, V. NARASINGH
Republic of India(CBI) – Appellant
Versus
Prakash Kumar Sinha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V. Narasingh, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R. Agrawal, learned counsel for the Opposite Party.
2. This is an application filed under Section 378(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 by the Republic of India(CBI) seeking leave to appeal against judgment for acquittal dated 08.09.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge,C.B.I-II, Bhubaneswar in TR No.34 of 2010 (RC No.9(A)-2010), acquitting the Opposite Party, Head clerk, Flash Butt welding Plant(FBWP), South Eastern Railway, Jharsuguda from the accusation of committing offences under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1908 on account of allegation that the Opposite Party-accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) from the complaint, abusing his position as a public servant to process the pension papers of the father of the complainant(Kapindra Kishan- P.W.9), who was working as Khalasi.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the Kapindra Kishan, father of the complainant was working as a Khalasi in the Flash Butt Welding Plant (FBWP), South Eastern Railway, Jharsuguda and since the date of retirement o
The court reiterated that evidence must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and an accused enjoys the presumption of innocence, particularly in cases of acquittal.
The acquittal in corruption cases necessitates clear and convincing evidence; lack of key witness undermines prosecution's case.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient corroborative evidence, underscoring the presumption of innocence and the need for reliable witness testimony in corruptio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence i....
The demand for illegal gratification is essential to constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to establish guilt without proof ....
Point of Law : 9, 8 Offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as in absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position a....
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
