Back
V. SRISHANANDA
B. S. Angadi – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard Sri Shankar Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Anil Kale, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-Lokayukta.
2. The present appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dtd. 23/7/2011 passed in Spl.SVC.CC.No.2/2005 by the District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, ("trial Court" for short), whereby the appellant-accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("PC Act" for short).
3. Accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.5, 000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 7 of PC Act in default to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and accuse No.1 was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.2, 000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of PC Act, in default to pay the said fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
4. Accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5, 000.00 for the o
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.
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 prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt to establish the guilt of the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to substantiate a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of bribe money without proven dem....
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
