Back
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
B. M. Venkatappa S/O Melegouda – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka Through Karnataka Lokayukta Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.
The present appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.PC challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the accused by the XXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru City, sitting at CCH No.24 as per the judgment dated 30th September 2014 in Spl.CC No.116/2008 wherein the appellant accused was found guilty of committing the offences under Section 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act').
2. After concluding the investigation, charge sheet came to be registered as Special CC No.116 of 2008. The accused/appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. He is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of PC Act. Even set off is also given with regard to the period und
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.
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.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The prosecution must prove both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was not established in this instance.
The court upheld that demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act are distinct offences, allowing for separate convictions based on the same facts.
The court established that proving demand and acceptance of bribe is essential to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with particular attention to evidence during trap operati....
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe as a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence beyond the complainant's testimony....
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
