9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.
Conviction under Section 7: The appellant was convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. The High Court dismissed the appeal against this conviction. The Supreme Court upheld this conviction, stating that the conviction under Section 7 cannot be assailed based on the evidence presented. Conviction under Section 13(1)(d): The appellant was also convicted under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The appellant argued that there was no evidence that he obtained any amount by corrupt or illegal means. The Court emphasized the word "obtains" in Section 13(1)(d), highlighting the need for evidence that the accused obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage through corrupt means. The Court referred to previous cases to interpret the meaning of "obtains" in such cases. Interpretation of "obtains": The Court discussed previous judgments to clarify the meaning of "obtains" in cases of corruption by public servants. It was emphasized that there must be proof that the accused obtained a valuable thing through corrupt or illegal means, abuse of position, or without public interest. The Court analyzed the evidence presented in the case and concluded that there was no proof that the appellant demanded or obtained any amount from the complainant. Conclusion: The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction under Section 13(1)(d)(i) of the Act and acquitting the appellant for the same.
|
