Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
V SRISHANANDA, J
Rajashekhar S/o Kalyanrao Patil – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Lokayukta.
2. The present appeal is filed by the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in Special Case No.36/2011, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court, Yadagiri by judgment dated 07.01.2020.
3. The accused has been sentenced as under:
“Accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default undergo imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two and half years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- in default undergo imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act .
The sentences and in default sentence shall run concurrently.
Supply free copy of the Judgment to the accused forthwith.
M.O.1 to 6 being articles, notes, cassette and paper used for keeping the bribe amount is ordered to be return to the concerned police after appeal period is over with a direction to proceed with the same as per law.”
4. Facts i
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.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of bribe money without establishing demand is insufficient.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe, which was established through witness testimonies and forensic evidence.
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 ....
Prosecution must establish both demand and acceptance of bribe to secure conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Point of Law : Defence cannot be ballasted with the premise that Courts will, from the outset, be guarded against and suspicious of the testimony of trap witnesses.
The central legal point established is that the demand for illegal gratification is a sine qua non for convicting an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove the....
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to substantiate a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of bribe money without proven dem....
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
