GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
Manmohan Singh Son Of Shri Kashiram Jatav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh, Through S. H. O. , Special Police Establishment – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the Judgment and Sentence dated 19-3-2021 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Shivpuri in Special Case No. 06/2016, by which the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the following offences :
| Conviction under Section | Sentence |
| Under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default R.I. for 3 months |
| Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 7,000/- in default R.I. for 4 months |
All sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The prosecution story in short is that on 24-12-2014, the complainant made a written complaint to S.P., S.P.E. (Lokyakut), Gwalior on the allegations that his grand mother Binia Bai has died 4 months back, therefore, his father had moved an application for mutation of his name as well as the names of his sisters in the revenue records of land situation in village Kishanpura, area 0.61 hectares. Accordingl
Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel
Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. State of Gujarat
Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King
Hazari Lal Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) (1980) 2 SCC 390
K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 178
M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P.
Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of A.P. AIR 1979 SC 677
Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2015) 14 SCC 186
Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2019) 14 SCC 311
Podyami Sukada v. State of M.P.
Pritish v. State of Maharashtra
Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P.
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary
State of Goa v. Jose Maria Albert Vales
The prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction under Sec. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corrup....
Demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery 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 need for corroboration of evidence in corruption cases, the importance of a valid sanction, and the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.