TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Conviction Reinstated: Assistant Sub-Inspector Sentenced for Bribery Under Prevention of Corruption Act.</h1> <h3>State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Shambhu Dayal Nagar</h3> The SC reinstated the Special Court's decision, convicting the respondent, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. Evaluation of evidence and reliability of witnesses.3. High Court's grounds for setting aside the Special Court's judgment.4. Supreme Court's assessment of the High Court's judgment and reinstatement of the Special Court's decision.Summary:Issue 1: Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The respondent, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted u/s 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 3500/- to avoid seizing rifles and arresting the complainant and his brother.Issue 2: Evaluation of evidence and reliability of witnessesThe prosecution's case was supported by the complainant, Badan Singh (PW1), and independent witnesses Aditya Chobey (PW6) and Surender Rai Sharma (PW11). The trap was meticulously planned and executed, with phenolphthalein powder applied to the currency notes, which were later recovered from the respondent's pocket, confirming the bribe transaction.Issue 3: High Court's grounds for setting aside the Special Court's judgmentThe High Court set aside the Special Court's judgment on the following grounds:1. Discarded the testimony of Badan Singh, PW1, stating the upper right pocket of the shirt is not a normal place for keeping currency notes.2. Argued that 35 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination could not fit in the upper right pocket without being folded.3. Suggested that Badan Singh, PW1, might have forced the currency notes into the respondent's pocket.4. Considered the possibility of phenolphthalein powder traces on the respondent's hands due to resistance.Issue 4: Supreme Court's assessment of the High Court's judgment and reinstatement of the Special Court's decisionThe Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning untenable and erroneous. It emphasized that the recovery of Rs. 3500/- from the respondent was corroborated by Badan Singh, PW1, and independent witnesses. The Court dismissed the argument that previous enmity led to false implication and upheld the Special Court's conviction. The Supreme Court restored the judgment of the Special Court, emphasizing the pervasive issue of corruption and the need for stringent measures against it.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and reinstated the Special Court's decision, convicting the respondent u/s 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
