Back
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Shrikant S/o. Subray Bhat – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka by Lokayukta Police, Represented by its Deputy Superintendent of Police – Respondent
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special (SVC) No.9 of 2021 arising out of Crime No.17 of 2019 registered for offences punishable under Sections 7(a), 7A, 12 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The petitioner is accused No.1.
2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-
An anonymous complaint emerges against the functioning of the Sub-Registrar’s office at Gadag. The allegation was that all the staff in the office is in the habit of demanding bribe and, therefore, a request was made to personally visit the Sub-Registrar’s office, look at the truth and initiate proceedings. The complaint was made to the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. Based upon this, a crime is registered in Crime No.17 of 2019, a search warrant was secured and office of the Sub- Registrar, Gadag was searched. What was found, according to the search so conducted, from the hands of the petitioner was allegedly Rs.9390/- and all others who were in the office of the Sub-Registrar at the time of search were either licensed deed writers or private parties who had come to get the documents
Illegal gratification – For presumption to operate, basic ingredients of demand and acceptance must be present in a given case.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential to establish offences under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The demand and acceptance of bribes must be proven for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, highlighting its critical role in establishing culpability.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribes is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money without evidence of demand does not establish an offence.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential to establish offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient fo....
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential to establish an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere allegations without evidence fail to sustain prosecution.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be established beyond reasonable doubt to sustain charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish corruption charges under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, with mere return of money not sufficient without es....
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
