Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN
S.P. Malarkannan, S/o.Palanichamy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal allegations against the appellant. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 2. arguments on evidence and accused behavior. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's observations on evidence requirements. (Para 10 , 19) |
| 4. principles of proof in corruption cases. (Para 20) |
| 5. final acquittal and implications. (Para 23) |
JUDGMENT :
The 1st accused in C.C.No.117/2008 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, who is aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.11.2009, has preferred this appeal. Respondent is the State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the accused/appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the prosecution side.
3. Perused the trial court records and the judgment under challenge.
4. In a nut shell the prosecution allegation is that the first accused had worked as a Veterinary Surgeon and the 2nd accused worked as a Livestock Inspector in Government Veterinary dispensary, Rajakkadu during 2002. While so, the first accused, being a public servant, at 6.00 P.M on 29/04/02 demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1500/- from one Prasanth, who is the brother's son of one Vijayan, as a motive for issuing postmor
The court established that reliable evidence is necessary to prove demand and acceptance of bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the need for prosecution to substantiably validat....
Prosecution must establish a clear demand for bribery; mere acceptance without proof of demand does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can be established through circumstantial evidence and testimony from witnesses, despite hostility.
There must be credible evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, irrespective of the witness's credibility.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of bribe without establishing demand cannot sustain a conviction.
The requirement for proof of demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act was satisfied, confirming the conviction of the public servant involved.
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 bribe is essential for conviction under the P.C. Act; absence of direct evidence necessitates acquittal.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribery is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and absence of such evidence can lead to acquittal.
The demand and acceptance of bribes must be proven to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with evidence being sufficient to uphold the conviction.
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
