Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Subhash Vidyarthi
Mohd. Saleem Khan – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thur. Superintendent Of Police Central Bureau – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Vidyarthi J.
1. Heard Sri Nandit Srivastava Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Shahla Zubair and Sri Pranjal Krishna Advocates, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the CBI.
2. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 read with Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 07.03.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Court No. 1, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 2 of 2008 arising out of RC No. 0062008A0016/2008 under Sections 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station C.B.I./A.C.B., Lucknow, whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay Rs.15,000/- as fine. In case of failure to pay fine, the appellant would have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for an additional period of six months. The appellant has been acquitted of the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prev
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of money does not suffice without evidence of demand.
Illegal gratification – Allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond reasonable doubt – Mere possession or recovery of currency notes is ....
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Without sufficient evidence, the accused may be acquitted.
Requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act is critical for conviction; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
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
