AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 235 wordsLeave granted.
The challenge in the present appeal is against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 30th September, 2015 affirming the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the P.C. Act"). The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
The complainant (P.W.11) as well as the Shadow witness (P.W.12) had turned hostile. No proof of demand of bribe was, therefore, forthcoming. The conviction is entirely on the basis of presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act following the recovery of the alleged tainted money.
In B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55, after referring to several other decided cases, namely, C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P., (2010) 15 SCC 1 and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779 it has been held that in the absence of proof of demand, mere recovery of alleged tainted money will not be sufficient to attract the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act.
In view of the above, the order of conviction and the consequential sentence must be held to be legally unsustainable and is hereby set aside. The appeal consequently is allowed.