Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
M.G.Uma
Karnataka Lokayukta, Through Deputy Superintendent, Lokayukta Police Station – Appellant
Versus
N. Ranjeet S/O N. Nanjundayya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M G Uma, J.
The State of Karnataka through, the than ACB, now Lokayukta Police, Vijayapura has preferred this appeal impugning the judgment of acquittal dated 02.11.2021 passed in Special (Lok) Case No.03/2019 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge/the Special Judge at Vijayapura, acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 , 8 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘PC Act’).
2. The facts of the case in brief are that, on 15.03.2018 at 10.50 p.m., accused No.1 was working as Motor Vehicle Inspector in RTO Zalaki Check Post, while accused Nos.2 to 6 being the middlemen and accused Nos.7 and 8 being the Home-guards were assisting accused No.1, who used to stop lorries passing through the Check Post on the pretext of checking the vehicle and collecting illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration from the drivers and owners of various vehicles. A raid was held on the Check Post and accused No.1 being the public servant was found in possession of Rs.27,530/-, accused Nos.2 to 6 were collectively found in possession of Rs.5,050/-. It is alleged that, the same was obtained by corrupt or illegal means for which the acc
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 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.
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 burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish corruption charges beyond a reasonable doubt, which requires credible and consistent evidence.
The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act for a conviction to stand.
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 appellate court can reverse an acquittal if evidence of bribery and the demand for illegal payments is established beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing that both parties bear the burden in a plea....
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
