IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
V.SRISHANANDA
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Dhareppa Kattimani – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
1. Heard Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel, for the appellant-Lokayukta and Sri Sharanagouda Patil and Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, learned counsels, for the respondents-accused.
2. This appeal by the Lokayukta challenging the order of acquittal in Special (Lok) Case No.13/2012 dated 10.03.2020 on the file of the Special Judge, Vijayapura.
3. Facts in the brief, which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, are as under:
3.1 A charge-sheet came to be filed by the Lokayukta Police against the respondents-accused for the offences under Section 13 (1)(c) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short P.C. Act) and Sections 468 and 201 read Section 34 IPC.
3.2 The charge-sheet materials would disclose that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 being the public servants working as Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Accounts Superintendent in Public Works Department, respectively, and accused No.5 being the Class-I Contractor colluded with each other and without carrying out the work of strengthening and asphalting the road from 36.5 kilometre to 47 kilometre on Devarahipparagi to Talikoti Road,
The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, reinforcing the acquittal of the accused, emphasizing the requirement for cogent evidence in corruption cases.
The prosecution must provide satisfactory evidence beyond reasonable doubt for conviction, and an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence in cases of legal infirmity in evidence.
The prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
A conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires clear evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes; mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient without proof of the fundamental elem....
The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish corruption charges beyond a reasonable doubt, which requires credible and consistent evidence.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to do so results in an acquittal, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
In corruption cases, an accused is acquitted if unexplained assets are below 10% of known income; a finding of less than 5% results in no grounds for conviction.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and the evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery must be corroborated and consistent to establish the offense unde....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement of material evidence and witness support to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must provide substantive evidence of the demand and acceptance of bribe money, and the work of the complainant must be pending....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.