Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G. UMA
K.M. Shivakumar, S/o. K.C. Mallanna – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Represented By Lokayukta Police, (Previously Anti-Corruption Bureau), Represented By: The Special Public Prosecutor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the offenses and accused's roles (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding evidence and convictions (Para 7 , 15) |
| 3. court's analysis and evaluation of evidence (Para 8 , 19 , 22) |
| 4. assessment of evidence and defense arguments (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 18) |
| 5. legal standards for proving bribery charges (Para 16 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 30) |
| 6. final order and verdict summary (Para 28) |
| 7. final decision on appeals and conclusions drawn (Para 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
(M.G. UMA, J.)
The appellant in Crl.A.No.734/2025 being accused No.1; the appellant in Crl.A.No.732/2025 being accused No.3 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.735/2025 being accused No.4 in Spl.C.No.241/2018 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, are impugning the judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2025 and order of sentence dated 22.03.2025, convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the P.C. Act'), and sentencing them to undergo SI for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 7 of P.C Act, and to undergo simple im
In corruption cases, mere possession of excess cash by a public servant is insufficient for conviction without evidence of demand or acceptance of illegal gratification.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribery is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and absence of such evidence can lead to acquittal.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the P.C. Act; absence of direct evidence necessitates acquittal.
The conviction of a public servant for bribery requires proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential to establish an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere allegations without evidence fail to sustain prosecution.
The conviction of the accused was upheld for demanding and accepting bribe, reinforced by testimony establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of bribe without establishing demand cannot sustain a conviction.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
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
