Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SAVITRI RATHO
Surendra Kumar Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha (Vig.) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing order for corruption case (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. cognizance of offences under p.c. act (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments from both parties (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's analysis and reasoning on evidence (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. conclusion and dismissal of crlmc (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
Judgment :
Savitri Ratho, J.
1. This CRLMC has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.02.2025 passed in V.G.R. Case No. 04 of 2021 by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sundargarh taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short “the P.C. Act”) and issuing notice to the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.
BRIEF FACTS
2. Written report was submitted by Narayan Bagh, Headmaster of Sahaspur Primary School, Sundargarh on 03.03.2021 before the S.P. Vigilance, Rourkela Division stating that the Petitioner who was posted as Block Education Officer, Hemgir Block and co-accused Biranchi Khilei who was posted as Jr. Asst. in that office were harassing him and demanding illegal gratification of Rs. 35,000/- for not having submitted 'utilization certificate' relating to expenditure of
The accused public servant’s demand for bribe through a co-accused constituted a prima facie case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, despite being absent during the bribe exchange.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money cannot establish charges without evidence of demand.
Proof of demand and voluntary acceptance essential for conviction under Sections 7/13(2) PC Act; mere tainted money recovery insufficient. Appellate interference in acquittal only if perverse or unre....
The judgment emphasizes that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential elements for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere recovery of t....
The lack of proof of demand for illegal gratification is a crucial factor in determining the conviction under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act.
Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) PC Act; mere recovery insufficient without proof, especially absent pending official work & with hostile sha....
Establishing demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; failure to prove these elements results in acquittal.
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 judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proven as a fact, and the prosecution can rely on direct or circumstantial evidence to establish guilt.
Statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and can be utilised only to corroborate or contradict the witness vis-a-vis statement made in court. In other words, it can be utilised on....
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
