SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(MP) 104

G.B.PATTANAIK, UMESH C.BANERJEE
Punjabrao – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


JUDGMENT


This appeal is directed against the judgment of Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench. by the impugned judgment, State of Maharasht having approached the High Court against an order of acquittal pass( by the learned Special Judge, the High Court has set aside the acquittal and convicted the appellant under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(1) (d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution alleged that on25.9.1986, the accused, who was the Patwari, demanded and accepted illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 100/-, and he being a public servant, such acceptance tantarnounts to offence under section 161 and 5(1) (d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused, in his statement, candidly admitted about the recovery of sum of Rs. 100/- from him and the acceptance of money by him from the. complainant PW 1. But he took the plea that the aforesaid amount was not in pursuance to any demand by him as any' illegal gratification but was a loan amount which the accused was collecting in those days from different raiyats and, therefore he has not committed any offence either under section 161 or under th



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top