Back
RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
Prakash Balappa Naik – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. This is an appeal is filed by the appellant/accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in Special Case No.38/2010 dtd. 12/11/2013, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act') and sentenced him for imprisonment with fine.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the Trial court.
3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the accused is a Village Accountant and a public servant. The complainant had purchased 2.01 acres of land in Rs. No.98/3 of Bandakeri Village and he has applied for mutating his name in RTC. It is also alleged that when the complainant has approached the accused in this regard, the accused has demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2, 000.00 and Rs.1, 000.00 was paid in advance and the balance of Rs.1, 000.00 was demanded by the accused. The complainant being reluctant to pay the bribe went to the Loka
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and the evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery must be corroborated and consistent to establish the offense unde....
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.
Prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction; mere acceptance of bribe is inadequate.
The failure to substantiate the demand and acceptance of a bribe precludes conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The prosecution must establish the actual demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and any doubt in a criminal case should benefit the accused.
The necessity of proving both the demand and acceptance of bribe money as a prerequisite for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was established, emphasizing that mere recovery of taint....
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
