Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction of  person accused of corruption

The Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction of a person accused of corruption.


The complainant Richpal Rai, Gram Sevak, of Panchayat Samiti submitted a complaint before S.B. Chowki Churu stating therein that the accused, employed at the post of L.D.C. in the office of the District Collector, Churu, and that allegedly he took a bribe from the complainant. And that, it is alleged that the complainant was served a notice under Rule 17 CCA was issued and that despite giving a sufficient reply, a demand of Rs. 10,000/- was made from him, of which he paid Rs. 1000/- initially. And, it is alleged that the complainant was repeatedly approached by the appellant with the demand for the balance Rs. 9,000/-. 


Senior Advocate Rajesh Joshi, appearing for the appellant, submitted that Dilip Kumar admitted in his cross-examination that he did not witness the appellant taking the bribe, nor did he witness a demand for any bribe being made by him. And similar testimony was rendered by witnesses, Shishupal Singh, and Mahaveer Prasad. 

He contended that the recording from the tape recorder utilized in the trap proceedings, was not exhibited nor was any voice sample of either parties taken. The complaint was the sole basis of the conviction by the Trial Court, and has ignored the testimonies of the witnesses, which cast doubt on the version of the prosecution.

Public Prosecutor however, opposed and submitted that the Court below has rightly passed the impugned order after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and perusing the evidence placed on record before it.


The single judge bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati observed that, for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 sub-section (1) (d) read with Section 13 sub-section (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to be made out against the accused, it is necessary that the twin ingredients of a demand of illegal gratification / bribe of remuneration or any valuable thing, either without consideration or a consideration which is known to be inadequate by the accused or for a pecuniary advantage, for himself or another, made by the accused or by another on his behalf, coupled with a recovery of the said illegal gratification from the accused, or from someone who has accepted the same on his behalf or if he has dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant, must be proven by the prosecution as per the facts and circumstances of each case. 

The Court found that the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Court below, does not suffer from any legal infirmity and therefore, the same is upheld and affirmed. 

Case title: Adittya Kumar v/s State

Citation: S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 366/1999

Click here to read the Order/Judgment 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *