Back
V. SRISHANANDA
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the State/Lokayukta challenging the judgment passed in Special Case No.577/2010 dtd. 7/7/2015 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under :-
One Mahesh lodged a complaint with Lokayukta Police on 25/2/2009 stating that his cousin Smt.Akkamahadevi has applied for Staff Nurse post and she has been serving as Staff Nurse in Primary Health Care Centre, Hasinapur village in Shorapur Taluk and she has to furnish the caste certificate for the purpose of drawing salary and she had applied the same to the District Backward Classes and Minority Welfare Office, Kalaburagi. In that regard, the complainant met one Ramesh (accused) who in turn demanded for Rs.2,000.00 as illegal gratification for furnishing the caste certificate. Since the complainant was not interested in paying the same, the discussion took place and it was reduced to Rs.1,000.00. Complainant was not even interested for the said amount and therefore, he approached the Lokayukta Police. Being convinced about the conservation that took place between the accused-Ramesh and the complainant, Lokayukta Police registered a case in
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must provide substantive evidence of the demand and acceptance of bribe money, and the work of the complainant must be pending....
The judgment established the importance of circumstantial evidence, the admissibility of evidence from a hostile witness, and the need for the accused to provide a true explanation to rebut the presu....
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of bribes beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
The prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction under Sec. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corrup....
The judgment emphasizes the necessity for the prosecution to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, as well as the pending work with the accused, to sustain a conviction under ....
The court affirmed the importance of corroborative evidence in bribery cases, ruling that both demand and acceptance of bribes must be clearly established to support convictions under the Prevention ....
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
