Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M G Uma
K.R. Siddappa, S/o Late Sri Ramaiah – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, By Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Bangalore Rural District, Rep. By Learned Public Prosecutor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused demanded illegal gratification. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. prosecution proved accused's guilt. (Para 4 , 14) |
| 3. point of law for consideration. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. witness credibility and corroboration. (Para 7 , 8 , 12) |
| 5. failure to establish defense negates claims of innocence. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. validity of the sanction order. (Para 13) |
| 7. consideration for leniency in sentencing. (Para 15) |
| 8. modifications to sentencing ordered. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
M G Uma, J.
The accused in Spl.Case.No.63/2009, on the file of the learned Principal Session Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, is impugning the Judgment of conviction and Order of Sentence dated 01.07.2013, convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act'), and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act, with default
The court affirmed that evidence of legal gratification was conclusive, thereby confirming the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act and emphasizing the presumption of guilt under Section....
Public servants demanding and accepting bribes can be convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with the burden of proof shifting to the accused to disprove presumption of guilt once the pros....
The court established that consistent witness testimonies and physical evidence are sufficient to prove the demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court upheld the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, establishing that acceptance of a bribe by a public servant creates a legal presumption of corruption, which the accused failed....
The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act for a conviction to stand.
Conviction upheld as prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribes under Prevention of Corruption Act with valid sanction.
The burden lies on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; discrepancies and reasonable doubt favoring the accused warrant acquittal.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; trivial amounts may not negate liability if corrupt intent is established.
Once acceptance of the money is established, accused has to rebut said presumption by acceptable evidence. The explanation given by accused in this case regarding acceptance of amount and the evidenc....
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
