Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Dehadrai Seeks Dismissal of Moitra's Dog Custody Suit
11 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Bail to Porsche Father in Swap Case
11 Mar 2026
Natural Gas Supplies Prioritized Under Section 3 Essential Commodities Act Amid LNG Disruptions: Central Govt Order
11 Mar 2026
Delhi High Court Directs Ministries, CBFC to Implement Film Accessibility Features for Disabled Persons per RPWD Act Guidelines
11 Mar 2026
Foreign Nationals Entitled to Article 22(1) Grounds of Arrest in Known Language: Karnataka HC Sets at Liberty but Orders Handover to FRRO
11 Mar 2026
Madras HC Permits CBSE Student to Appear for Maths as Additional Subject Despite Policy Violation in Peculiar 'Rat Race' Circumstances
11 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Neha Rathore
11 Mar 2026
Menaka Guruswamy Elected India's First Openly Queer Rajya Sabha MP
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MANOJ KUMAR GARG
STATE – Appellant
Versus
AHIVARANLAL JATAV – Respondent
[2025:RJ-JD:32987]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 731/2004 State of Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus Ahivaranlal Jatav S/o Nanheram Jatav, R/o Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh the then Lower Division Clerk, Sub Division, RSEB, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted by Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
Order Reserved on : 25/07/2025 Date of pronouncement: 31/07/2025 The present appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 26.03.2004 passed by learned Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act), Udaipur (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'learned trial Court') in Special Case No. 16/2001 whereby, he acquitted the respondent from offence under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Su
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence i....
Illegal gratification – Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would come into operation only when there is no nexus between demand and action performed – But, when fact of receipt of payme....
The main legal point established is that demand of bribe is essential to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of money without proof of demand is insufficient for....
The main legal point established is the requirement for the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant, the relevance of circumstantial evidence, and the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of proving the demand for illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The ju....
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
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
Listen Article