Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Orders No-Fault Vaccine Compensation Policy
11 Mar 2026
Maintenance to Wife Should Not Encourage Idleness or Be Excessive: Gujarat HC Reduces Family Court Enhancement under CrPC Ss.125,127
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
BELA M. TRIVEDI, K. V. VISWANATHAN
P. I. Babu – Appellant
Versus
C. B. I. – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam on 25-5-2011 in Criminal Appeal No.1900/2004, whereby the said Court has allowed the said appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation and convicted the appellant-original accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter, referred to as “PC, Act”) as also for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter referred to as “IPC”). The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each of the said offences and directed to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offences under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and Section 13(1)(d) of the PC, Act.
2. Heard learned Senior counsel, Mr. R. Basant, for the appellant and Mr. Vikaramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General for the CBI at length.
3. Having considered the submissions made by learned Senior counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Solicitor General
A valid sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act is necessary, but acquittal cannot occur without addressing all merits of the case.
Sanction for prosecution – Substantial principle of requiring sanction for prosecution and at the same time principle in not negating sentence or order of a court of competent jurisdiction are both i....
(1) Question with regard to validity of such sanction should be raised at the earliest stage of proceedings.
(2) Interlocutory application seeking discharge in midst of trial would not be maintain....
The absence of evidence proving demand and acceptance of a bribe is critical for conviction under corruption laws.
The validity of a sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be challenged at any stage of proceedings, and a fresh sanction does not violate the principle against double jeopardy if the pre....
The court upheld the lower court’s sanction order for prosecution despite lengthy delays, focusing on the validity of the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; trivial amounts may not negate liability if corrupt intent is established.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article