Back
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Bharat Raj Meena, S/o. Sri Ramdev Meena – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation, ACB, Kochi, Ernakulam By Standing Counsel, High Court Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the accused in CC No.2/2015 on the file of Special Judge, (SPE/CBI) III Ernakulam (for short, 'the trial court') challenging the judgment dated 31/5/2016 convicting and sentencing him under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act').
2. The appellant Bharat Raj Meena was working as Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Palakkad. The case of the prosecution in short is that, while the appellant was working as public servant in the above capacity, from April 2005 to July 2005, he demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.10,000/-each from PW8 C.P.Johnny, PW9 I.K.Girish Kumar and PW11 C.Mohana Krishnan through PW6 Anantha Narayanan as illegal gratification for effecting their transfers.
3. The genesis of the case is as follows:
One Sri.P.P.Nandakumar, Clerk in DSC Office, Palakkad preferred a complaint alleging demand of bribe of Rs.10,000/-by the appellant through PW6 Anantha Narayanan, Constable/RPF Coimbatore, for getting complainant's posting in Palakkad area following his medical decategorization from RPF and subsequent absorption in alternative post as clerk
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a pre-requisite to establish guilt under the Prev....
Insufficient proof of demand and acceptance of bribe renders conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act unsustainable, emphasizing the need for corroboration of accomplice testimony.
The judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of a bribe can be proven through circumstantial evidence and that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ca....
The court established that proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, reaffirming the need for credible evidence from witnesses. The ....
The standard of proof for demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act is met when evidence establishes exigent demands backed by corroborative testimony, with appropriate p....
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for establishing corruption charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Once acceptance of the money is established, accused has to rebut said presumption by acceptable evidence. The explanation given by accused in this case regarding acceptance of amount and the evidenc....
The court confirmed that the prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribes for corruption convictions, affirming that minor discrepancies in witness accounts do not undermine overall testimo....
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
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
