Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
M.G.UMA
P. Yatiraj, S/o Puttaswamigouda – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of illegal gratification allegations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. evidence review affirming illegal bribe acceptance. (Para 11 , 18 , 21) |
| 3. legal context on corruption sanctioning. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 4. final verdict and modification of sentence. (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
M.G. UMA, J.
The accused in Special (Lok) Case No.9/2013 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions/Special Judge, Vijayapura, has preferred this appeal, impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2018 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘P.C. Act’) and sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for 02 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and further, sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, for the offence under Section 13 (1)(d), punishable under Section 13 (2) of P.C. Act, with default sentences.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the prosecution are that, the appellant/accused was working as Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and the complainant is an Advocat
Conviction upheld as prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribes under Prevention of Corruption Act with valid sanction.
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.
Public servants demanding and accepting bribes can be convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with the burden of proof shifting to the accused to disprove presumption of guilt once the pros....
The court affirmed that evidence of legal gratification was conclusive, thereby confirming the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act and emphasizing the presumption of guilt under Section....
The burden lies on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; discrepancies and reasonable doubt favoring the accused warrant acquittal.
The court upheld the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, establishing that acceptance of a bribe by a public servant creates a legal presumption of corruption, which the accused failed....
The court established that consistent witness testimonies and physical evidence are sufficient to prove the demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The prosecution must establish both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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
