K.HEMA
T. G. Natesan, Range Officer – Appellant
Versus
Dy. Supdt of Police, Vigilance And Anti Corruption Bureau Represented by The Public Prosecutor High Court of Kerala – Respondent
K. Hema, J.
1. Can a public servant be convicted for offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('the P.C. Act' for short), only on proof that his wife or any other person is or has been in possession of pecuniary resources and property during the relevant period? Is a public servant bound to account for such possession under Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act? These are the main questions to be decided in this appeal.
2. The Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) laid a charge sheet against appellant, who is a public servant, before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge ('the Special Judge', for short), alleging offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. After trial, the trial court convicted appellant under the said Section and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and, in addition, to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as fine. In default of payment of fine, he was also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The said conviction and sentence are challenged in this appeal.
3. Prosecution case, briefly: The appellant was a public servant working in the Forest Department during the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.