Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Hagami Lal Kumawat s/o Madhu lal Kumawat – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
Farjand Ali, J.
Grievance
1. By way of filing the instant appeal, the appellant assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.10.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (Sessions Court) for P.C. Act Cases, Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 16/2009, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo two years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and, in default thereof, to further undergo two months’ additional imprisonment, which judgment and sentence are arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be quashed and set aside.
Facts of the Case
2. The brief facts of the present appeal are that on 03.07.2008, the complainant Bapu Lal submitted a handwritten complaint before the Additional Deputy Superintendent of P
The required proof of demand for illegal gratification under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not established, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery without evidence of bribe demand is insufficient.
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.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential, but inferential deductions can be made in the absence of direct evidence.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The demand for illegal gratification is essential for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
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