Manipur HC: State Establishments Must Record Transgender Person’s New Name & Gender in Documents  ||  Delhi HC: Failure to Frame Counter Claim Despite Pleadings is Patently Illegal  ||  Mumbai Commission Holds Reliance Retail Liable for Defective AC Replacement Failure  ||  SC Orders ASI to Supervise Repair of Mehrauli’s Ancient Dargahs  ||  SC Reprimands Bihar IPS Officer for Affidavit Supporting Murder Convict  ||  SC Rejects Review Plea on WB SSC Jobs, Upholds Quashing of 25k Appointments  ||  SC Rejects Review Plea on WB SSC Jobs, Upholds Quashing of 25k Appointments  ||  Supreme Court Orders Haridwar Collector Inquiry into Maa Chandi Devi Trust  ||  SC Recommends Statutory Appeal Against DJ’s Compensation Orders  ||  SC Dismisses Petition Challenging 2024 Maharashtra Assembly Elections Over Bogus Voting    

V. Sejappa v. State - (Supreme Court) (12 Apr 2016)

Mere handing over of currency notes not illegal gratification

MANU/SC/0494/2016

Criminal

Merely handing over money to a government official is insufficient to establish illegal gratification in the absence of proof of demand, the Supreme Court held.

The case at hand involved a government official having allegedly demanded Rs. 5000 from a retiree before he would sanction his retiral benefits and pension. Pursuant to a probe being conducted, the Appellant was found to have handled tainted money.

The court, however, was disinclined to be swayed by such singular evidence, noting that the Appellant was absent from office on official business when demand was made; there remained a dearth of evidence proving demand. It was also critical of the High Court’s failure to consider the defence that the amount paid by the retiree may have been for purchase of diesel.

Relevant : Umedbhai Jadavbhai Case MANU/SC/0164/1977 C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. MANU/SC/0981/2010 Muralidhar alias Gidda and Anr. v. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/0294/2014

Tags : ILLEGAL GRATIFICATION   PROOF OF DEMAND  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved