IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
V Srishananda
State Of Karnataka, Through Karnataka Lokayukta Police Yadgir – Appellant
Versus
Ramanna S/O Yallappa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V Srishananda, J.
Heard Sri. Subhash Mallapur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Lokayukta/appellant, Sri. Narendra N. Bettad, learned counsel for Sri. Mallikarjun S., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. This appeal is by the Lokayukta, challenging the order of acquittal passed in Special Case No.1/2013 by the Special Judge, Yadgiri, by Judgment dated 19.03.2018.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
3.1. One Mallikarjun lodged a complaint with Lokayukta Police on 24.05.2010 that he is having a business of transporting the sand from Canal situated at Malhar village and he has a necessary permission in the name of Gazuddin.
3.2. About 15 days earlier to lodging the complaint, the accused persons being the Police Officials of Gurumitkal Circle, illegally seized the lorries loaded with sand and moved the lorries to the Gurumitkal Police Station. For the release of lorries, the accused persons said to have demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/- as bribe. On an earlier occasion, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- and got released the lorries. But again, four lorries were seized and they were a
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 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 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.
Prosecution must establish both demand and acceptance of bribe to secure conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court affirmed the importance of corroborative evidence in bribery cases, ruling that both demand and acceptance of bribes must be clearly established to support convictions under the Prevention ....
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to do so results in an acquittal, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
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....
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 sampling of circumstantial evidence and testimonial support is sufficient to uphold a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with indirect acceptance of bribes being legally tenable.
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.