Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
V.SRISHANANDA
State of Karnataka Through, Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station Kalaburagi, Rep. By Spl. Public Prosecutor, Karnataka Lokayukta, High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi – Appellant
Versus
Suresh S/O Balangouda Biradar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(V. SRISHANANDA, J.)
Heard Sri. Subhash Mallapur, learned Spl. P.P. for Lokayukta/appellant and Sri.Ravi K. Anoor, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Avinash A. Uploankar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. The present appeal is preferred challenging the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge in Special Case No.2/2016 by the Judgment dated 29.07.2019, insofar as accused Nos.3 and 4 is concerned.
3. The facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under :
3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Kalaburagi that Sri. Shellagi Devendrappa being the representative of All India Anti- Corruption Committee, submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi, and other officers alleging misappropriation of funds of the Government.
3.2. The Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi, forwarded the representation to the Karnataka Lokayukta and based on the same, a case came to be registered by the Lokayukta department by Sri. T.R.Raghavendra being the Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta. He also conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted a report to the Superintendent
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.
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 prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish corruption charges beyond a reasonable doubt, which requires credible and consistent evidence.
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 prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to do so results in an acquittal, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, the requirement of proof of demand for establishing acceptance of illegal gratification, and the reluctance to interfere with the judgment of acq....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement of material evidence and witness support to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and the evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery must be corroborated and consistent to establish the offense unde....
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
