Back
P. N. DESAI
Rajashekhar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Police Inspector – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.03.2013 passed by Principal Sessions (Special) Judge, Bellary in Spl.Case No.22/2010 wherein, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7 r/w 13(2) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption, Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act, 1988).
2. The appellant was the accused before trial court. He will be referred as such, in this appeal for convenience.
3. Brief case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused was working as Medical Officer in Primary Health Centre, at Tambrahalli in Bellary district. Sri. V.N.Joshi complainant was working as Health Instructor under the accused in the Primary Health Centre. He was posted to Sidaginamola Primary Health Centre, at Bellary Taluk on O.O.D. It is further alleged that complainant has passed SSLC examination in Kannada language and on account of Government policy, an additional increment was sanctioned to the complainant. The accused was the drawing officer of complainant and for the purpose of preparing bills regarding payment of arrears of salary in view of complainant’s eligibility for an incr
The lack of proof of demand for illegal gratification is a crucial factor in determining the conviction under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act.
Mere recovery of tainted notes without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance insufficient for conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) PC Act; demand is sine qua non, presumption under Section 20 ina....
The court affirmed that a valid sanction and credible evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes are essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient without establishing these elements.
Statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and can be utilised only to corroborate or contradict the witness vis-a-vis statement made in court. In other words, it can be utilised on....
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
