S. RACHAIAH
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
L. Dorairaj – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant-State, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dtd. 24/12/2010 in Spl.C.C. No.39/2004 on the file of the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (CCH.34), wherein the Trial Court acquitted the respondent / accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act').
2. The rank of the parties in the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused being the public servant working in the capacity as Enforcement Officer in the Department of Employees' Provident Fund Commissioner, Mysuru, was authorized to recommend in settling the issues of M/s.VST Precision Components Ltd., Mysuru under the EPF Act. It is alleged that on 9/10/1997 and 17/10/1997, the accused by abusing his official position as a public servant, said to have demanded Rs.5, 000.00 as illegal gratification from the complainant to do some official favour to the complainant. The complainant being unhappy about the demand made by the accused,
Bhagwan Jagannath Markad and Others vs. State of Maharashtra
C M Sharma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
D Velayutham vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police, Salem Town, Chennai
Phula Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Shankerbhai Laljibhai Rot vs. State of Gujarat
Suresh Chandra Jana vs. State West Bengal
Vinod Kumar Garg vs. State (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
The demand for illegal gratification is essential to constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to establish guilt without proof ....
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.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, and the prosecution must prove the demand of gratification beyond reasonable d....
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, 1988.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence i....
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.