Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) -- Illegal gratification - Panch witness not supported prosecution case - However, DSP and Deputy Collector and other PWs supported prosecution version and their statements were credible and trustworthy - Prosecution proved its case - Accused rightly convicted...........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(1)(d) -- Illegal gratification - Conviction for - Testimonies of prosecution witness and investigating officer corroborating with each other - Minor discrepancies in testimony of other prosecution witnesses would not disprove entire testimonies - Therefore, conviction of accused proper - However, considering the advanced..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) -- Illegal gratification - Trial Court acquitted accused on the ground of invalidity of sanction - However, High Court reversed the finding of trial Court and convicted the accused without appreciating the legal position regarding need for sanction or effect of its invalidity - Incident occurred 17 years back -..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13 -- Demand and acceptance of bribe proved - Vivid deposition of complainant corroborated by other witnesses - Presumption u/s 20 comes into play - No interference warranted...........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13 -- Sentence imposed higher than the minimum applicable at relevant time - Reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of rupees one lakh...........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13, 20 -- Illegal gratification - Appeal against conviction - Accused, Asst. Labour Commissioner allegedly received bribe from complainant to issue license - Statement of complainant and evidence of panch witnesses consistently establishing basic ingredients of demand and acceptance - Tainted currency also found from accused -..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) -- Illegal gratification - Trap case - Where prosecution is based on a trap, it must be the concern of Court to examine the whole materials, and find whether trap is a genuine trap arranged by police on a genuine complaint or whether it is a vicious trap which police happened to make on a mischievous complaint..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) -- Illegal gratification - Trap case - A trap for a trap at the instigation, or at instances of somebody who is interested in such a trap, or who is for his own reasons, interested to see that a particular public servant is trapped, cannot be said to be a genuine or legitimate trap - Such a trap is a vicious..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) -- Illegal gratification - Merely on the basis of recovery of phenolphthalein tainted currency alone, accused cannot be found guilty - Evidence of PW7 DSP is only regarding recovery of currency from the consulting room of doctor - Such evidence would have only supportive value - There must be some direct and..........
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13 -- Illegal gratification - Accused a public servant (BDPO) demanded Rs.2000 from complainant to pass the resolution for auction of fish-ponds in village - Complainant was Sarpanch and had sent the resolution for approval of accused - Accused caught red handed while demanding and accepting illegal gratification - Recovery of..........
