Back
SANJEEV S. KALGAONKAR
J. S. Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh through Special Police Establishment – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This Criminal Appeal under section 374(2) of CrPC is filed assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.1.2016 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bhind in Special Case No.01 of 2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence, as under:
| Conviction | Sentence | Fine | Imprisonment (in default of fine) |
| Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | 5 years’ RI | Rs. 20,000/- | 3 months’ RI |
| 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | 5 years’ | RI Rs. 20,000/- | 3 months’ RI |
It was further directed that both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
2. For the sake of convenience, appellant - J.S.Yadav shall be referred to as ‘’the accused’’ and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 shall be referred to as ‘’the Act, 1988'’.
3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is as under:--
(i) Complainant Rohit Awasthi runs his pickup vehicle No.MP 30GA-0721 for hire. Driver of vehicle Chhotu informed that the Station House Officer of Police Station, Phoop intercepted the vehicle near Nibua Check Post and threatened him that if he wishes to ply the vehicle on that road, he would have
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.
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....
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 ....
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt to establish the guilt of the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The essential elements of proving corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act include establishing a clear demand for illegal gratification and its subsequent acceptance by the public servant.
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
