Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Subodh Abhyankar
Ramchandra Bhadoriya – Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
1. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant – Ramchandra Bhadoriya, under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgement dated 01.10.2005 passed in Special Case No.09/2002 by I A.S.J. and Special Judge, Indore (M.P.) whereby finding the appellant guilty, the learned Judge of the trial Court has convicted him as under:-
| Conviction | Sentence | |||
| Section | Act | Imprisonment | Fine | Imprisonment in lieu of Fine |
| 7 | Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | 2 years R.I. | Rs.1,000/- | 3 months R.I. |
| 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) | Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | 2 years R.I. | Rs.1,000/- | |
both the sentences run concurrently.
3. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that complainant Kailash Joshi was the Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Bhangiya, Tehsil Sanwer, and he required around 20 land rights and loan book (Bhu Adhikar Evam Rin Pustika) for which he submitted an application on 12.06.2001, in the office of Tehsildar, Sanwer along with the bank challan, which was forwarded by the Tehsildar to the appellant Ramchandra Bhadoriya, who was then posted as Assistant Grade- I, who used to look after the distribution
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Without sufficient evidence, the accused may be acquitted.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of money is insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, and the permissibility of drawing inferential ....
Evidence of demand and acceptance is crucial for conviction in corruption cases; mere recovery of money is insufficient without proof of illegal gratification.
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue, and the perm....
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....
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
