Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Mere acceptance of money does not prove corruption; demand must be proven: Gujarat High Court

01 October 2024 3:46 PM

By: sayum


Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat v. Maheshkumar Laxmanbhai Gamit upheld the acquittal of the accused in a corruption case, emphasizing that mere acceptance of money does not constitute an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act unless the prosecution proves the demand for illegal gratification. Justice S.V. Pinto dismissed the State's appeal against the 2010 acquittal by the Special ACB Court in Surat, citing insufficient evidence of demand.

Maheshkumar Laxmanbhai Gamit, a clerk in the SRP Group, Surat, was charged with accepting a bribe of ₹200 for fixing the complainant's salary. The complainant, Suresh Bhaskar Borse, filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in 1992, resulting in a trap operation. While the money was found on the accused, the trial court acquitted Gamit, citing a lack of evidence to establish demand for the bribe.

The main issue was whether the prosecution could prove the essential element of demand for illegal gratification, a requirement under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The State argued that the recovery of tainted money should have been sufficient to convict Gamit.

Justice Pinto ruled that demand for illegal gratification is a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court noted discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly between the testimony of the complainant and the trap witnesses. The Court highlighted that mere possession of marked money does not prove corruption without clear evidence of demand.

"The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance; mere recovery of tainted notes is insufficient for conviction."

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the State's appeal, reaffirming that the prosecution failed to establish demand for the bribe. The trial court’s acquittal of Maheshkumar Laxmanbhai Gamit was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

Date of Decision: September 9, 2024

State of Gujarat v. Maheshkumar Laxmanbhai Gamit​.

Latest Legal News