Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K.SAHOO
Pradeepta Kumar Praharaj – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha (Vig.) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accusation of bribery and trial (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. witnesses and evidence verification (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments by respective parties (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. analysis of the evidence regarding demand and acceptance (Para 7) |
| 5. evidentiary standards and presumption in bribery cases (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. conclusion on credibility and burden of proof (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
The appellant Pradeepta Kumar Praharaj faced trial in the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur, Ganjam in G.R. Case No. 38 of 1998 (V)/T.R. No.73 of 2000 for offences punishable under section 7 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter ‘1988 Act’) on the accusation that on 14.09.1998 being a public servant employed as an Asst. Surgeon in Project Hospital, Khatiguda in the district of Nabarangpur, he accepted Rs.300/- (rupees three hundred only) from the informant Gajendra Nayak (P.W.5) by way of illegal gratification, other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing an official act i.e. for issuing his medico-legal opinion in respect of the injury sustained by the informant and obtained pecuniary advantage of such amount from P.W.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Bribe - Conviction - Sanction for prosecution - unless any prejudice is shown or any glaring infirmity or illegality in the investigation is established, the prosecution case cannot be discarded mere....
The prosecution must prove demand of bribe as essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of money is insufficient without this proof.
Prosecution must prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe; failure to establish these elements results in acquittal.
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....
(1) Mere receipt of amount by accused is not sufficient to fasten his guilt in absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of amount as illegal gratification.(2) Prosecution cannot d....
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.
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 proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient without evidence of demand and....
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
