Back
PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASANNA B. VARALE
A. Karunanithi – Appellant
Versus
State Represented By Inspector of Police – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. leave granted for special petitions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. conviction under relevant sections of the act (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments regarding a-1 and a-2's respective positions (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. requirements for conviction under the act (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. analysis of sentencing considerations for a-1 (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. final judgment and order modifications (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19881[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] in Special Case No. 2 of 2011 vide judgment and order dated 23.11.2011 convicted accused No. 1 and accused No. 2, namely, A. Karunanithi and P. Karunanithi respectively under Section 13 and Section 7 of the Act. A-1 was awarded three years RI with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act and 2 years RI with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 7 of the Act and in the event of non-payment of fine with SI of 3 months each. Similarly, A-2 was awarded sentence of 1.5 years of RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- under S
Sentence – Court can show compassion to reduce sentence by exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The burden lies on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; discrepancies and reasonable doubt favoring the accused warrant acquittal.
Public servants demanding and accepting bribes can be convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with the burden of proof shifting to the accused to disprove presumption of guilt once the pros....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the demand of illegal gratification is essential for proving the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of tainted ....
Public servants committing corruption through bribery are liable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, where sufficient evidence proves demands and acceptance o....
The requirement for proof of demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act was satisfied, confirming the conviction of the public servant involved.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; mere receipt of bribe without evidence of demand is insuffic....
There must be credible evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, irrespective of the witness's credibility.
The ruling emphasizes that directing another person to accept a bribe constitutes acceptance under the Prevention of Corruption Act, validating the conviction based on demand and acceptance of illega....
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can be established through circumstantial evidence and testimony from witnesses, despite hostility.
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
