| Topics |
Headnote |
Judgement |
| PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 |
|
PDF |
| PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 |
PC Act — Ss 7 & 13(2) —Conviction under — Admission regarding accepting alleged money — Submission by accused — as per the instructions of his superior officer he was to assist the litigants in official work — no allegation regarding demand as bribe —Held, complainant did not come before the Court with true facts and tried to play hide and seek — Related witness — Interested witness — PW was cousin of complainant & had a grudge against Accused — Hostile Shadow Witness — Held, further makes the evidence of Complainant and his cousin seriously doubtful — Investigating Officer — Admission by — in all the documents he found that amount was asked for the work of bail — Sanctioning authority — Admission by — in none of the documents it was mentioned that Accused demanded amount for his own use —Demand & Acceptance not proved — Held, defence raised appears to be more probable, plausible, believable and acceptable—Acquittal. (Para 13, 14, 15, 17 & 21) |
PDF |
| PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 |
PC Act — Ss 7 & 13(2) Offence under — Demand — of alleged illegal gratification — is sine quo non for constituting offence — Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused — when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable — unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe — or to show that money was voluntarily accepted as a bribe — Evidence Act — S 3. (Para 16) |
PDF |
| PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 |
PC Act — Ss 7 & 13(2) — Receipt of illegal gratification — Standard of proof —Mere receipt of amount by accused is not sufficient to fasten the guilt — in the absence of evidence with regard to — demand & acceptance — of amount as illegal gratification — Evidence Act — S 3. (Para 16) |
PDF |
| PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 |
PC Act — S 19 —Sanction under — Relevant Documents submitted for according sanction — No description in sanction or by sanctioning authority— would show lack of application of mind by competent authority while according sanction — cannot be said to be legal and valid sanction — Evidence Act — S 3. (Para 18 &22) |
PDF |
| PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 |
PC Act — S 19 —Sanction under — Object of — to discourage vexatious prosecution and it is a safeguard for the innocent, though not a shield for the guilty. (Para 19) |
PDF |
| PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 |
PC Act — S 19 —Sanction under — Essential ingredients — (i) The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority — including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft chargesheet and all other relevant material — The record so sent should also contain the material/document — which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction; —(ii) The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction; — (iii) The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought ; — (iv) The order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material. —(v) In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law. (Para 19) |
PDF |
| PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 |
PC Act — S 19 —Sanction under — Duty of Sanctioning Authority— Sanction order is not a mere formality — It is for the sanctioning authority to apply its mind before according sanction. (Para 22) |
PDF |