Back
S. Unnikrishnan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C. Jayachandran, J.
A trap laid by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau missed the target as against A1, the public servant. Recovery - allegedly on behalf of A1 - could be effected only from A2, a document writer. The trustworthiness of the prosecution case and adequacy of proof in accordance with law are under challenge in these appeals.
2. These appeals impugn the judgment of the Special Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in C.C.No.37/2009, which convicted both the accused persons for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, ('P.C. Act' for short), read with Section 120 B of the Penal Code. The accused persons were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months each; and a fine of Rs.40,000/-for offences under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, read with Section 120 B of the Penal Code. A similar term of sentence and fine was imposed on both the accused for offence under Section 13(1)(d), punishable under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, read with Section 120 B of the Penal Code. Besides, R.I. was ordered for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 120 B of the Pe
The prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe, leading to the acquittal of both accused.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The court established that proving demand and acceptance of bribe is essential to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with particular attention to evidence during trap operati....
Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which was duly established in this case.
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.
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....
The conviction of a public servant for bribery requires proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Demand and acceptance of bribe are essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted amount in the abse....
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe as a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence beyond the complainant's testimony....
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
