Full Name		Full Name is required
Email ID		Email ID required Invalid Email is ID
(this email-id will be treated as your User ID also)
Address
City		City required
Mobile No		Mobile No is required Invalid Mobile No
	* Mobile No is required for verification of identity

Head Note

Prevention of Corruption Act,1988  - Section 7 , Section 13 (2) , Section 20

Corruption - Presumption - Illegal Gratification - PW-1 complainant, has proved the demand of rupees one lakh, made by the appellant, for accepting and approving the advance rice to be supplied by the Shellers - He has further proved that after some talks the appellant agreed to accept Rs.50,000/- -Statement of PW-1 fully corroborated by PW-2 and PW-3 shadow witness and official witness respectively - PW-11, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau narrated the entire operation and proved the complaint made by PW-1, the FIR, sanction for prosecution of appellant and also proved the report from Forensic Science Laboratory, received on completion of investigation - Considering quality of evidence of prosecution witnesses amount of Rs.50,000/- cannot be planted, and the defence version pleading innocence cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of this case - Keeping in mind the presumption to be taken under Section 20 of the Act, 1988, Court not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial court under Section 7/13(2) of the Act, and affirmed by the High Court - Sentence reduced from 3 years to 2 years RI.

Topic(s)-Corruption - Presumption - Conviction upheld ,  Sentence reduced ,