Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (2.54 seconds)Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 344 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Zakaullah on 12 December, 1997
12. Per Contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any
infirmity warranting interference by this court. Even if PW2 is
partially hostile to the prosecution case, the testimony of the other
prosecution witnesses was rightly relied on by the trial court to
conclude regarding the guilt of the accused. It was also pointed out
that Ext. PW11/B, the FSL Report also remains unchallenged.
Reference was made to the dictums in State of U.P. v Zakaullah
AIR1998 SC 1474 and M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001)
1 SCC 691, in support of the arguments.
N. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000
31.1 Here, even if certain aspects of direct evidence, such as
PW2 partially turning hostile, are not fully consistent, the
circumstantial evidence clearly establishes acceptance of money.
The recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused, the
positive phenolphthalein test, the presence of the accused at the
spot, and the sequence of events immediately before and after the
transaction together form a complete chain of circumstances.
These circumstances lead to a clear and reasonable inference that
the accused had voluntarily accepted the money. As further
explained in M. Narsinga Rao (supra), the Court is entitled to
draw factual presumptions from proved circumstances, and once
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 37 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
such an inference of acceptance is drawn, it becomes the basis for
invoking the legal presumption under Section 20. The accused
herein has failed to rebut the presumption by offering any
convincing or plausible explanation. He has simply denied the
allegations without explaining how the marked currency notes
came into his possession. Further, no enmity or plausible motive
has been shown by the defence as to why PW2 or PW8 would
falsely implicate the accused.
Neeraj Dutta vs State(Govt.Of N.C.T.Of Delhi) on 15 December, 2022
23. The question that arises is whether the prosecution has
established the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of the
bribe by the accused while discharging his official duty and
thereby attracting the offences punishable under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. It is well-settled
that both the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public
servant constitute foundational facts which must be proved by the
prosecution. Mere acceptance of illegal gratification without proof
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 897/2006
Page 21 of 46
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:15.04.2026
13:20:24
of offer by the bribe giver and demand by the public servant would
not constitute an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC
Act, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v.
State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731.
Mohan Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 16 August, 2018
Though PW2 claimed that he
was unable to recall wash of which hand of the accused had been
taken, he admitted that the wash turned pink. Thus, his testimony
supports the prosecution case on several important aspects of the
transaction. It is well settled that evidence of a hostile witness is
not to be discarded in toto and the Court may rely upon those
portions of the testimony which appears credible and inspires
confidence in the mind of the Court. (Mohan Lal v. State of
Punjab; AIR 2013 SC 2408, Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P.;
AIR 2012 SC 1979, Prithi v. State of Haryana; (2010) 8 SCC
536, Lella Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P.; AIR 2004 SC 1720,
Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat; AIR 2000
SC 210). Therefore, despite some inconsistency regarding the
initial demand, the testimony of PW2 when read with the
remaining evidence on record remains consistent and does inspire
confidence.