Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G BASAVARAJA
State Of Karnataka, By Police Inspector, Lokayukta Police Station – Appellant
Versus
K. Prabhakar, S/O Late Krishna Swamy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution's charge details and background. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. point of consideration for the court. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's analysis of evidence and procedural requirements. (Para 8) |
| 5. order of dismissal of the appeal. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
G BASAVARAJA, J.
State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 31st May 2014 passed in Special Case No.55 of 2010 by the District & Sessions Judge at Chamarajanagar (for short "the trial Court").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status and rank before the trial court.
3. The case of prosecution is that Police Inspector, Lokayukta, Chamarajanagar laid charge-sheet against the accused for offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is alleged by the prosecution that accused, being a public servant working as village accountant in revenue department of Kasaba Hobli, Kollegal, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.7,000/- from the complainant for doing official favour, viz. changing the khata of the land in survey Nos.1043 and 971 situated in Kollegal, Ka
Prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction; mere acceptance of bribe is inadequate.
Burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere possession of tainted money is insufficient to prove corruption under the Preventio....
The necessity of proving both the demand and acceptance of bribe money as a prerequisite for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was established, emphasizing that mere recovery of taint....
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction.
Point of Law : 9, 8 Offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as in absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position a....
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
