Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G.UMA
D. Chandrashekhar, S/o. Sri. Dodda Setty – Appellant
Versus
State, By Lokayukta Police, Karnataka Lokayukta Bangalore – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(M.G. UMA, J.)
The appellant being accused No.1 in Special CC No.172/2006 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore City, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.12.2012, convicting him for the offences punishable under Section 7 , 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act') and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 months for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for One year for the offence under Section 13 (1)(d) R/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, PW4-Nagaraju filed the first information with Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging that they being the Medical Officer and Health Inspector respectively working in Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short 'BBMP'), demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- per month to permit him to lift the garbage, even though he is a licensed holder to clear the garbage in Ward Nos. 80, 81 and 82 from hotel an
The prosecution must establish both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe by public servants is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, established through testimonies and corroborative evidence.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of bribe without establishing demand cannot sustain a conviction.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe as a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence beyond the complainant's testimony....
The necessity of proving both demand and acceptance of bribe as sine qua non for establishing offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with the requirement for proper certification of e....
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
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
