Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G. UMA
B.K. Raghavendra S/o S.N. Keshavmurthy – Appellant
Versus
State by Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and charges against the accused (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on behalf of the appellant and respondent (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's observations on facts and evidence (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. legal reasoning on the benefit of doubt (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. conclusion and order of acquittal (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
M.G. UMA, J.
1. The appellant being the sole accused in Special (Corruption) Case No.30 of 2011 on the file of the learned XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2012, convicting him for the offence punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the PC Act') and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one and half 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 sentences.
2. Brief facts of the case as mad
The burden lies on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; discrepancies and reasonable doubt favoring the accused warrant acquittal.
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 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 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 prosecution must establish both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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 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....
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
