Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 311 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Raghubir Singh vs Gen.Manager,Haryana Roadways,Hissar on 3 September, 2014
It was further argued that the explanation offered by the
Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was wholly unsatisfactory and
failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC
Act, which mandates that once the acceptance of gratification is
proved, it shall be presumed to be a reward or motive unless the
contrary is established. Reliance was placed upon the decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghubir Singh vs. State of
Haryana, reported in (1974) 4 SCC 560, T. Shankar Prasad v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 753, Vinod
Kumar vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2015 Cri.
Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani vs State Of Gujarat on 13 July, 2021
11. It is a settled law that proof of demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification by a public servant is sine qua non for
establishing guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) of the PC Act.
The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act does not
arise unless the prosecution first proves such demand and
CRLA No.658 of 2012 Page 8 of 10
acceptance. The same has been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in its recent decision in the matter of Dileepbhai Nanubhai
Sanghani vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2025 LiveLaw
(SC) 273, as follows: -
The State Of Karnataka vs Chandrasha on 13 July, 2023
L. 1442, and
State of Karnataka vs. Chandrasha, reported in (2025) 97 OCR
(SC)-323. In the present case, no such rebuttal has been made by
the Appellant, and the defence version appears to be an afterthought
intended only to evade liability. Accordingly, it was urged that the
conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court call for
no interference.
1