Back
SUBODH ABHYANKAR
Sudeep – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER
1. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed under section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgement dated 21.7.2016, passed in ST No.5/2014 by Special Judge Ratlam (MP); whereby, finding the appellant guilty, the learned Judge of the trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence under sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as “Act of 1988”) and sentenced him under section 7 of Act of 1988 for one year R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000/-, under section 13(2) of Act of 1988 for 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default clause to undergo 3 months additional R.I. (2 counts).
3. In brief case of the prosecution is that against the appellant Sudeep Sharma, who was posted as Patwari Halka no.35 was given the charge of Patwari Halka No.32-A village Hartali, a complaint (Ex-P-9) was filed in the office of Special Police Establishment Lokayukta, District Ujjain, by the complainant Bagdiram (PW-2) on 18.12.2013, in which it was stated that he is a resident of Gram Mathuri wherein he and his brothers have an ancestral land, whereas Patwari Sudeep Sharma has informed him that it is a rev
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable evidence and the need to prove the demand for bribe before establishing culpability under the Prevention of Corruption A....
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Without sufficient evidence, the accused may be acquitted.
The court established that in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must provide reliable evidence of demand for bribes, and the failure of the de facto complainant to support....
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential elements to establish an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove these elements beyond reasonab....
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which can be established through direct and circumstantial evidence.
The demand and acceptance of bribe must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction without corroborative evidence.
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
