Back
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Heera Devi Chandra v. State of M.P. (Now C.G.).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under the prevention of corruption act is subject to scrutiny of evidence and circumstances surrounding the case. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. defense must present reasonable explanations for acceptance of money to counter prosecution's demands. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. the prosecution's burden includes establishing the credibility of witnesses and evidence presented. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. the principle of reasonable doubt must favor the accused if their defense is plausible. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
1. Heard.
2. This appeal arises out of judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.1.98 passed by Special Judge and First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Special case No.09/94, whereby and whereunder, the deceased appellant was convicted under S.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months, fine of Rs. 500 in default, S.1. for three months and under S.13 (1) (d) read with S.13 (2) of the , sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year, fine of Rs. 500, in default, S.I. for three months.
3. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant Lakhanlal died and his legal representative was permitted to prosecute the appeal.
4. The case of
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
