Back
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor – Appellant
Versus
P. M. Kunhappan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 22/9/2007 in CC No.22/2002 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode (for short, 'the court below').
2. The accused faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act').
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the accused, while working as the Village Officer, Kanhirangad, demanded bribe of Rs.3,000/- from the defacto complainant/decoy on 30/11/2000 for conducting verification on the application filed by him at the Land Tribunal, Mananthavady for getting purchase certificate and accepted Rs.1,000/- on 5/12/2000, at 1.25 p.m. at his office by abusing his official position as a public servant.
4. After trial, the court below found the accused not guilty and acquitted him vide impugned judgment. Challenging the said judgment of acquittal, the State preferred this appeal.
5. I have heard Sri. A. Rajesh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for VACB and Sri.Devaprasanth P.J., the learned counsel for the accused/respondent.
6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for VACB
Term "shall be presumed" in Section 20(1) showed that Courts had to compulsory draw a presumption.
In assessing cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, mere inquiries about bribe amounts do not equate to a legal demand, and evidence must be compelling to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The lack of proof of demand for illegal gratification is a crucial factor in determining the conviction under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act.
The demand of illegal gratification is essential to constitute an offence under the PC Act. The prosecution must establish the accusation beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption of innocence fav....
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of bribes beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
The demand for illegal gratification is essential to constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to establish guilt without proof ....
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for establishing corruption charges 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
