Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
V.SRISHANANDA
State of Karnataka, Through Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Kalaburagi, rep. By Spl Prosecutor Lokayukta, High Court of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Khadar Jeelani, S/o. Murtuzasab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(V. SRISHANANDA, J.)
Heard Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the appellant – Lokayukta and Sri Ravi K. Anoor learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Karnataka Lokayukta, Kalaburagi has filed the present appeal challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge in Special Case No.1/2016 (Lokayukta) by judgment dated 05.10.2020.
3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
T. Bhimalingaiah S/o. T. Ramanajaneyalu, lodged a complaint with the Lokayukta Police, Kalaburagi, contending that he got a promotion as an Associate Professor in the year 2013 and it has to be given effect in the year 2000 itself. For the promoted post, he was entitled to salary including the arrears of salary to the extent of Rs.26,00,000/-. In that connection, he had sent the bills to Joint Director, Collegiate Education, Kalaburagi. Case workers, who are the persons to process the bill, demanded a sum of Rs.17,500/- as bribe on 07.03.2014 and the same was paid by the complainant. On 18.03.2014, when he enquired accused No.2, again both the accused persons demanded a sum of Rs.22,500/- as bribe and the same should be paid on 19.03.2
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....
Prosecution must establish both demand and acceptance of bribe to secure conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
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.
Illegal gratification – Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would come into operation only when there is no nexus between demand and action performed – But, when fact of receipt of payme....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must provide substantive evidence of the demand and acceptance of bribe money, and the work of the complainant must be pending....
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 ....
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
