Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA
Sampath Rao S. Bommannavar, S/o. Sadbeppa Bommannanavar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka By Lokayukta Police, Mysore. Represented By Its Special Public Prosecutor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and factual background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellant. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 3. court's analysis and observations on evidence. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89) |
| 4. final conclusion and order of the court. (Para 90 , 91) |
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Accused No.1 who suffered an Order of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Spl. Case No.70/2007 dated 02.12.2011 on the file of the III Addl. Sessions and Special Judge, Mysuru, has preferred the present Criminal Appeal questioning the validity of the said judgment.
2. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
Appellant/accused No.1 was working as Commercial Tax Officer in Commercial Tax Office, Mysuru. Accuse
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of bribe money without establishing demand is insufficient.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe, which was established through witness testimonies and forensic evidence.
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.
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to substantiate a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of bribe money without proven dem....
Point of Law : Defence cannot be ballasted with the premise that Courts will, from the outset, be guarded against and suspicious of the testimony of trap witnesses.
When clouds of doubt arises on the part of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt is always accrued on the part of the accused alone, which is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery syste....
The evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Ac....
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
