Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) -- Illegal gratification - Demand and acceptance - Accused in his explanation u/s 313 Cr.P.C had accepted receipt of alleged amount - However, defence taken by accused that acceptance of tainted currency by him was towards Audit fees of Society was not proved by him - Pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) -- Illegal gratification - PWs are not reliable witnesses and their testimony regarding recovery of tainted money from the floor bristles with infirmity - DW1 and accused on the other hand, established that trap team headed by PW12, had forcibly dragged accused by holding his hand and manhandled the house owner..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) -- Illegal gratification - Complainant turned hostile - However, shadow witness, trap laying officer and colleagues of accused who were present at the trap, recovery of tainted money and scientific experts, are sufficient to hold that accused had obtained illegal gratification of Rs.300 from complainant - Plea..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) -- Illegal gratification - Quashing of proceedings - Proceedings cannot be quashed merely because informant turned hostile and does not support prosecution case, as demand and acceptance may be proved from other materials during trial connected to alleged trap and also by subjecting informant to examination in..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) -- Illegal gratification - Demand and acceptance - Complainant/PW1 is the only witness to alleged demand and acceptance - He did not state that accused reiterated her demand at the time of trap - His version is that on his own, he told her that he had brought the amount - In cross examination PW1 accepted that..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) -- Illegal gratification - Demand and acceptance - Place of occurrence - Accused contended that place of occurrence is almost in front of police station and thus it is not possible for any person to fix place for taking bribe in front of any police station - However, it is in the evidence of witnesses that..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) -- Illegal gratification - Accused being a Patwari demanded bribe of Rs.250 from complainant for correction in relevant mutation record - However, there are material contradictions in statement of complainant and panch witnesses with regard to initial demand and trap also - Complainant and I.O stated that at..........
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 227, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) -- Discharge - Illegal gratification - Demand of bribe was backed by a false bill in respect of a work already executed by another - Uncontroverted allegation establishes offence prima facie - A grave suspicion is disclosed from detection of tainted money after trap..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) -- Illegal gratification - Accused need not disclose defence and silence on part of accused during post trap proceedings cannot be taken into account as a circumstance to record conviction...........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) -- Illegal gratification - Accused being public servant abused his official position and obtained Rs.1500 pecuniary advantage for issuance of pahani copies to complainant - Both complainant and PW2 turned hostile - Prosecution did not examine any other independent witness other than PWs.1 and 2 - There is major..........
