farmers, got released excess amount in favour of the farmers and received kickbacks, is wholly false. As per prosecution version, compensation was to be awarded ... that the applicant's wife has nothing to do with any kickbacks amount. The additional payment received from Rajnish, is in relation
constituted and on 07.09.2018 the de facto complainant has given the kickback amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the said co-accused Praveen Kumar
amount or he was apprehended by the trap team, while taking kickback amount of Rs. 10,000/- is wholly false. It is submitted that several ... apprehended by a trap team, when he has accepted the illegal kickback amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the defacto complainant and the said amount
demand was made from Narsingh Solanki, who has allegedly paid the kickback amount of Rs.21,000/- to the applicant. Learned counsel submitted that alleged ... fall within the ambit of Public Servant and that he has accepted kickback an amount of Rs.21,000/- from the complainant and thus
account of son of applicant-accused and it was a kickback amount. However, it could not be disputed that in departmental enquiry applicant-accused
prosecution that the de-facto complainant has paid any amount or kickback to the applicant. There is no credible evidence that appellant has made
absolutely no occasion on the part of applicant to demand the alleged kickback amount. Further, regarding same incident, one more first information report has been
Anti corruption officials that co-accused Amit Kumar was habitual of taking kickbacks and there was no such observation that applicant-accused was indulging
