9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against conviction and sentence u/s 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Issue 1 - Sanction for Prosecution: The appellant challenged the legality of the sanction order, contending that it did not demonstrate proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority. Citing legal precedents, the appellant argued that the sanction order must reflect consideration of evidence before granting sanction. However, upon examination of the sanction order (Ex.P2), it was found that the authority had duly considered all relevant facts and certified its competence to sanction prosecution. The trial court and High Court both upheld the validity of the sanction order, with no illegality observed. The appellant's claim of improper sanction was dismissed, as the order was deemed to be in accordance with the law. Issue 2 - Demand of Bribe: The appellant claimed that no bribe demand was made, challenging the conviction based on evidence. Both trial court and High Court analyzed the evidence, affirming that the appellant did demand a bribe for the tax certificate delivery. Witnesses PWs. 2 and 3 testified to the demand made by the appellant. The courts found no inconsistencies in the evidence and upheld the conviction. The meticulous orchestration of the trap by the prosecution was noted, with no arbitrariness detected in the findings. The appeal was dismissed based on the concurrent findings of the courts below, concluding that the demand for bribe was established, leading to the conviction under the Act.
|
