Back
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Yesudasan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the accused in CC No.22/2014 on the file of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, 'the court below') challenging the judgment dated 28th February, 2019 convicting and sentencing him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the PC Act).
2. The appellant/accused was working as Village Officer in Anavoor Village. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 7/12/2011, he obtained Rs.2,000/- as bribe from the defacto complainant/decoy at the Village Office, Anavoor towards consideration for mutation of pokkuvaravu.
3. After trial, the appellant was found guilty and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years, to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 90 days for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act vide the impugned judgment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred this appeal.
4. I have heard Sri. Sasthamangalam S. Ajith Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. A. Rajesh, the learned Special Public Prose
Circumstantial evidence can be utilized to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant when direct evidence is unavailable.
Term "shall be presumed" in Section 20(1) showed that Courts had to compulsory draw a presumption.
Illegal gratification – Once prosecution has established that gratification in any form had been paid or accepted by a public servant, it can be presumed that gratification was paid or accepted as a ....
The demand for illegal gratification is a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
Establishing demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; failure to prove these elements results in acquittal.
The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act) can only be drawn if the prosecution proves the foundational facts, such as demand and acceptance of bribe. In the abse....
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe must be established beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of money is insufficient.
Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which was duly established in this case.
Bribe - Conviction - Sanction for prosecution - unless any prejudice is shown or any glaring infirmity or illegality in the investigation is established, the prosecution case cannot be discarded mere....
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
