Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Mohammad Nawaz
Chetan K N, S/o. Late Narasappa – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka Trhough Anti Corruption Bureau – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mohammad Nawaz, J.
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the Court of the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PC Act) Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.221/2021.
2. Vide impugned judgment, accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’ for short) and accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the PC Act.
3. Accused No.2 has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of the PC Act.
4. The trial Court has sentenced accused No.1 to undergo S.I. for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for a further period of 3 months, for the offence under Section 7 (a) of the PC Act.
5. Accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for a further period of 1 month for the offence under Section 12 of the PC Act.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, accused No.1 has preferred Crl.A No.477/2022 and accused No.2 has preferred Crl.A
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery without evidence of bribe demand is insufficient.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe by public servants is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, established through testimonies and corroborative evidence.
Requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act is critical for conviction; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
Illegal gratification – Allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond reasonable doubt – Mere possession or recovery of currency notes is ....
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.
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....
Demand and acceptance of bribery must be proven for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which can be established through circumstantial evidence.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
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
