Back
V. SRISHANANDA
Kashinath – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The appeal is by accused No.1 against judgment and order of conviction dtd. 23/9/2013 passed in Special (KLA)C.C.No.4/2012 by the III Additional District and Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad, "(the Special Judge" for short) whereby convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988 (PC Act) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under: Default Offences Punishment Fine sentence Sec. 7 of rigorous Simple P.C.Act. imprisonment Rs.2, 500.00 imprisonment for of one year two months. Sec. rigorous Simple 13(1)(d) r/w imprisonment imprisonment for Rs.2, 500.00 13(2) of of one year two months. P.C.Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under: A complaint came to be lodged by Sri Amit Hiremath son of Shivabasayya Hiremath with Lokayukta Police on 21/4/2011. The same is registered by Lokayukta Police in Crime No.5/2011 for the offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of PC Act.
3. In the complaint, the following averments are found. The complainant was selected as Accountant in the year 2010 in the Municipal Administrative Department and he had sought for the appointment under IIIB c
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 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.
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 all elements of the alleged offence, including demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and the pending work of the complainant with the accused, for a convictio....
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
