Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K.SAHOO
Ghasiram Behera – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha (Vigilance) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's bribery charges and background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of prosecution witnesses and evidence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. trial court's finding on charges. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. arguments from the appellant and prosecution counsel. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's analysis on demand for bribe. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. recovery of tainted money and defence arguments. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. final conclusion and acquittal of appellant. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
The appellant Ghasiram Behera faced trial in the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No.314 of 2007 for offences punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) and section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter '1988 Act') on the accusation that on 14.11.2003 he being a public servant functioning as Dealing Clerk in the office of Sub-Treasury, Pallahara in Angul district obtained for his pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.1,100/- (rupees eleven hundred) from the informant Mahendra Kumar Sahoo (P.W.1) for processing the gratuity and arrear provisional pension bills of his widow mother and accepted the said amount for himself as gratification other than legal remuneration fo
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 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....
(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....
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....
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 court upheld that demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act are distinct offences, allowing for separate convictions based on the same facts.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
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
