Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.Badharudeen
Sanu P.K. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bribery allegations against public servant. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenge to irregularities in procedure. (Para 4) |
| 3. law on attempt of bribe solicitation. (Para 5) |
| 4. public prosecutor's defense on fir registration. (Para 6) |
| 5. validity of fir registration despite anomalies. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER :
Accused in C.C.No.8/2025 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode, has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , seeking the following prayer:
2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the documents as well as the decisions placed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
4. While canvassing irregularity and illegality in the procedure, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in this matter, as per the mahazar, the money was accepted at 15.45 hrs. on 12.02.2024 and in the final report, it is stated as 16.05 hrs. This anomaly could be noticed from the mahazar and the final report. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, as per the prosecution records, trap procee
The demand for a bribe constitutes an offence under Section 7(a) of the PC Act, validating FIR registration prior to the bribe's acceptance.
The court confirmed that prior approval for investigating public servants is not required if they are arrested on the spot for accepting bribes, ensuring effective enforcement of anti-corruption laws....
The court established that prima facie evidence of a bribe demand is sufficient to justify an investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that quashing an FIR should be an exception rat....
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential to establish an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Point of Law : Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, High Court would have to proceed entirely on basis of allegations made in complaint or documents accompanying same per se....
The court established that sufficient evidence exists for the charge of bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
A FIR initiates criminal proceedings without needing specific role attribution; sufficient evidence during investigation upholds its validity, especially in corruption cases.
The court upheld the validity of the FIR against the petitioners for vote buying, emphasizing that allegations of corruption warrant investigation despite claims of political vendetta.
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
