Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. Nagaprasanna
Usha G., W/o K.S.Veerabhadraswamy – Appellant
Versus
State By Lokayukta Police, Bangalore City Police Station Represented By Special Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
The petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court calling in question registration of crime in Crime No.6 of 2024 registered for offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
2. Facts in brief, borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
The petitioner is a public servant working as Assistant Executive Engineer, Chandapura BESCOM Division. The 2nd respondent is the complainant, a Class-I Contractor and Proprietor of M/s Delta Engineers and Consultants. The complainant is said to have agreed to conduct some electrical work for his customer one M/s Praga Capital situated in Plot No.53C, Bommasandra, Anekal Taluk. Accordingly, the work was completed and the petitioner was requested to conduct inspection of meters in the said plot and submit his report for the purpose of approval of power supply. On the evening of 04-07-2024 at around 4.30 p.m. the petitioner completes the inspection of the property but did not submit the inspection report on the same day. The allegation is that the petitioner had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- for the purpose of completion
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.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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....
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 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 must be established beyond reasonable doubt to sustain charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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
