Back
GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Alok Pant – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of corruption against petitioner. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's grounds for challenging charges. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court analysis on the evidence and arguments. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. discussion on sanction and legal precedents. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. decision on evidence sufficiency for charges. (Para 13 , 20) |
| 6. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
The petitioner assails order dated 2.12.2022 passed by the trial Court vide which charges have been ordered to be framed against the petitioner for offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The allegations, in nutshell, are that on 19.11.2020, the complainant Harish Kumar lodged a complaint with the Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak alleging therein that Nasir, Rent Controller, Waqf Board, Rohtak and Alok Pant, Estate Officer, Waqf Board, Rohtak were demanding an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- as illegal gratification so as to forward his case to the Head Office at Ambala for allotment of a plot measuring 220 square yards. It is alleged that the said accused were asking him to make an initial payment of Rs.80,000/- and to pay the bal
(1) A person for charges of corruption under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be convicted on moral and ethics.(2) Order granting sanction must be demonstrative of fact that there had been p....
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe as required by law, and the recovery of currency notes without proof of demand does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of C....
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.
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 acquittal of the accused was upheld due to a lack of valid sanction and insufficient evidence of guilt, emphasizing the necessity of the Sanctioning Authority's application of mind.
Important Point :The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to a lack of valid sanction and insufficient evidence of guilt, emphasizing the necessity of the Sanctioning Authority's application of mi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a prima facie case to frame charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In assessing cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, mere inquiries about bribe amounts do not equate to a legal demand, and evidence must be compelling to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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
