Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA
Narasimhaiah Revenue Inspector, BBMP, Since Dead Represented By His Legal Representatives- Smt. Padmamma (W/o. Late Narasimhaiah) – Appellant
Versus
State By Lokayuktha Police, Represented By Standing Counsel And Spl. Public Prosecutor In The Honble High Court For Lokayuktha Cases, Bangalore – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard the arguments of Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for the dependants of appellant and Sri B.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Accused in Special C.C.No.16/2006 who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act by judgment dated 30.04.2012, passed by the Special Judge, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru (CCH-24) is the appellant. Appellant died during the pendency of appeal and his dependants are brought on record to pursue the appeal further.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:
Complainant having purchased a house measuring 18.3 feet X 25 feet approached the accused who was a bill collector, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as ‘BBMP’), Malleswaram for change of khatha in his name. At that juncture, accused said to have demanded sum of Rs.3,000/- as bribe. Complainant expressed his inability to pay the said bribe amount and on negotiation, bribe amount was reduced to Rs.1,000/-.
4. Complainant being not willing to pay the bribe amount of Rs.1,000/-, approached th
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe, which was established through witness testimonies and forensic evidence.
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 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.
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.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of currency notes is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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 court affirmed the importance of corroborative evidence in bribery cases, ruling that both demand and acceptance of bribes must be clearly established to support convictions under the Prevention ....
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
