Back
V. SRISHANANDA
GA Visiddappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Convicted accused in Spl.Case No.32/2011 has preferred this appeal challenging the validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 28/4/2016 on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under: One Yallappa Bheemappa Gaddi attempted to thieve the electricity connection by use of a hook to the electric wire on the pole installed in front of the house of Kaladagi village. Appellant/accused being the Sec. Officer of HESCOM, Kaladagi, conducted a raid and told the complainant that he would file a criminal case against him. At that juncture, complainant requested the accused not to file case against him. At that juncture, accused said to have demanded Rs.5000.00 as illegal gratification for not taking further action. Since there was a bargain for the illegal gratification, bribe amount was settled at Rs.3500.00. The conversation was recorded in the mobile telephone of the complainant and since complainant was not interested in parting away with the illegal gratification, he lodged a complaint with the Lokayuktha Police.
3. On receipt of the said complaint, the case came to be registered in Cr.No.2/2011 of
The prosecution must establish the actual demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and any doubt in a criminal case should benefit the accused.
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 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.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of bribe money without establishing demand is insufficient.
Point of Law : Defence cannot be ballasted with the premise that Courts will, from the outset, be guarded against and suspicious of the testimony of trap witnesses.
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.
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
