Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAMACHANDRA D.HUDDAR
M.S. Suresh Babu, Since Deceased By His LR’s- Smt. M.A. Leelavathi, (W/o. Late M.S. Suresh Babu) – Appellant
Versus
State By Lokayuktha Police Mysore – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the appeal and trial court findings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellant's counsel. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments from the prosecution's counsel. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. evidence from complainant and contradictions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. testimonies of various witnesses and inconsistencies. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. role and evidence of expert and police witnesses. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. requirements for establishing demand and acceptance in bribery cases. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. court's final findings and conclusion on the appeal. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT :
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.
The original appellant by name Mahendra Suresh Babu had filed the appeal during his life time challenging the judgment of his conviction and order of sentence dated 23.11.2011 in Spl.Case No.70/2009 by the III Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Mysore. During the pendency of this appeal, he died and his legal representatives i.e. wife and two children are now prosecuting this appeal.
2. The learned trial Court found the accused guilty of committing offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of
For a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, clear evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes is imperative; mere recovery of money does not suffice to establish guilt.
The court reaffirmed that a public servant's demand for a bribe must be supported by evidence of their capacity to provide an official favor, as required under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of money is insufficient.
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.
Evidence of demand and acceptance is crucial for conviction in corruption cases; mere recovery of money is insufficient without proof of illegal gratification.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction.
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....
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court affirmed that a valid sanction and credible evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes are essential 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
