Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Shri Brahm Parkash vs State on 8 October, 2010 cites

Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 November, 2000

In Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001 Crl.L.J.175 the arguments advanced by the accused that the presumption could be drawn only on the prosecution, establishing that gratification was paid or accepted by the public servant and not merely from its proving that he was found in possession of the currency notes, smeared with phenolphthalein powder were rejected. The Supreme Court held that "the premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted "as motive or reward" for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word 'gratification' need not be stretched to mean reward because reward Crl.A-50-2008 Page 17 of 23 is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like "gratification or any valuable thing." If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word 'gratification' must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it."
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 199 - Full Document
1