Back
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
Rangaramaiah, S/o. Late Madaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka by Lokayukta Police Mysore – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ramachandra D. Huddar, J.
Appellant-accused has assailed the judgment of his conviction and order of sentence dated 14th June 2011 passed in Spl.Case No.54/2009 by the III Addl. Sessions and Spl.Judge, Mysuru.
2. Parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court for convenience.
3. Brief facts leading upto this appeal are as under:
That, accused was charge-sheeted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Lokayukta, Mysuru alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that accused at the relevant time was working as a II Division Surveyor in Survey Department at K.R.Nagara, Mysore District. To the said survey department, complainant Raghuram and his brother arrayed in the charge sheet as CW.7 by name Thyagaraju submitted an application to survey their land situated at Senabinakuppa Village, Saligrama Hobli, K.R.Nagara Taluka and requested to fix the boundaries and also make phodies of the land. It is stated that, it was accused who received the said application. When complainant CW.1 by approaching the accused requested him to conduct
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction.
The court affirmed that a valid sanction and credible evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes are essential 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....
The prosecution must establish the demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money and contradictions among witnesses insufficient for convi....
Prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction; mere acceptance of bribe is inadequate.
The prosecution must prove the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification, and once these foundational facts are proved, there is a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Co....
When clouds of doubt arises on the part of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt is always accrued on the part of the accused alone, which is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery syste....
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
