SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Kar) 289

M.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD, R.V.RAVEENDRAN
MEHIBOOBSAB – Appellant
Versus
UPALOKAYUKTA – Respondent


Advocates:
G.NAGARAJULU NAIDU, H.SRINIVAS RAO, Subhash B.Adi

R. V. RAVEENDRAN, M. S. RAJENDRA PRASAD, JJ.

( 1 ) SRI nagarajulu naidu, learned additional government advocate is directed to take notice for respondents 1 and 2. Sri Sri nivasa rao, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent 3.

( 2 ) PETITIONER claims that he is working as junior engineer in Karnataka power transmission corporation limited, third respondent herein. On 5-11-1997 one gopal pandurang pawar gave a complaint to the police inspector attached to lokayukta, bijapur, that petitioner had made a demand for illegal gratification. On the basis of the said complaint, a raid/trap was held and the petitioner was prosecuted in special case No. 20 of 1998 on the file of the special judge, bijapur charging him with the offence of demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 250. 00 for providing electrical supply to the newly constructed house of complainant's grandfather, punishable under Secrions 7 and 13 (l) (d) read with Secrion 13 (2) of the Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988. Before the special judge, seven witnesses were examined. Of the seven witnesses, P. W. 5 was the police inspector who laid the trap, P. W. 6 was the sanctioning authority, P. W. 7
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top