Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Shivraj M.J., S/o Javaregowda – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
ORDER :
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
The petitioner/accused No.1 is at the doors of this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.22 of 2024 against the petitioner and others for offences punishable under Section 7 (a) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short).
2. Facts, in brief, as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:-
The 2nd respondent is the complainant. A complaint comes to be registered on 18-05-2024 against the petitioner and others alleging that the complainant owned sites in Site Nos. 3 and 10 in Sy.No.38/1A of Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and ward No.40 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Manahagara Palike and a dispute emerged between the neighbours with regard to ownership of sites. The complainant files a suit for injunction and it appears, that the concerned Court grants temporary injunction. A case and counter case comes to registered between the complainant and the neighbouring property owner. The petitioner was working as a Police Sub-Inspector in Byadarahalli Police Station. When the case and counter-case was registered before the Officer in-charge of the Police Station/the petitioner, it is alleged that the petiti
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribes is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money without evidence of demand does not establish an offence.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential to establish an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere allegations without evidence fail to sustain prosecution.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential to establish offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient fo....
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be established beyond reasonable doubt to sustain charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish corruption charges under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, with mere return of money not sufficient without es....
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential to establish offences under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The demand and acceptance of bribes must be proven for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, highlighting its critical role in establishing culpability.
Illegal gratification – For presumption to operate, basic ingredients of demand and acceptance must be present in a given case.
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
