IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
SHRIKANT S/O SUBRAY BHAT – Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 101560 of 2023
Decided On : 20-12-2023
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special (SVC) No. 9 of 2021 arising out of Crime No. 17 of 2019 registered for offences punishable under Sections 7(a), 7A, 12 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The petitioner is accused No. 1.
2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:
3. Heard Smt G. Bharati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Anil Kale, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there is no ingredient of demand and acceptance for an allegation under Section 7 or 7A of the Act, be it under un-amended or amended Act. The learned counsel would further submit that an anonymous complaint emerges, a search warrant is taken on that strength and the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gadag is searched. There are no trap proceedings conducted, there is no bait money, no test was conducted for the notes being the same and all that the Police of the ACB would do is search the office, found totally Rs.27,000/- and attribute it to the petitioner and other staff of the office. She would further emphasise that without there being any demand or acceptance Section 7 or Section 7A of the Act cannot be laid against the petitioner.
5. Per-contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri Anil Kale who has filed a statement of objections would submit that certain amount was recovered from the hands of the petitioner which was beyond Rs.100/-and from the hands of several private parties. Therefore, it was a case where Section 7 (a) or Section 7A of the Act would clearly get attracted. He would submit that all these factors are a matter of trial and,
B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P. (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543
C.M. Sharma vs. State of A.P. (2010) 15 SCC 1 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 89
N. Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu
P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. State of A.P. (2015) 10 SCC 152 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 11
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential to establish offences under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Illegal gratification – For presumption to operate, basic ingredients of demand and acceptance must be present in a given case.
The demand and acceptance of bribes must be proven for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, highlighting its critical role in establishing culpability.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribes is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money without evidence of demand does not establish an offence.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential to establish offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient fo....
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be established beyond reasonable doubt to sustain charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish corruption charges under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, with mere return of money not sufficient without es....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.