Back
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
V. GOPINATH PADIYAR S/O SHRI GANAPATHI PADIYAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE BY CBI/ACB, BANGALORE – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.
1. The appellant-accused assailed the judgment of his conviction and sentence passed in Spl. C.C. No. 129/2007 dated 23.12.2010 passed by the XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.
2. The learned trial Court found the accused guilty of committing the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act’). The learned trial Court “sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under of the Act and also he shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence and also sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act and is sentenced to undergo SI for Two years and shall also pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for six months.”
3. The parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court, for the purpose of convenience.
The facts leading up to this appeal in brief are as under:
4. That one Sri V.G. Gopinath Padiyar, the Senior Social Security Assistant, EPFO, RO, Bengaluru, is accused in this case agai
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.
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....
The court reaffirmed that a public servant's demand for a bribe must be supported by evidence of their capacity to provide an official favor, as required under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient without establishing these elements.
The prosecution must prove the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification, and the accused must rebut the presumption raised under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court confirmed that the prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribes for corruption convictions, affirming that minor discrepancies in witness accounts do not undermine overall testimo....
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
