Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN
G.S. Chandini W/o Jayarajan – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation, Ernakulam – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The 1st accused in CC No. 1 of 2015 pending before the Special SPE/CBI Court Ernakulam has preferred this revision petition under Section 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order in Crl.M.P. No. 287 of 2024 dated 31.07.2024, whereby the discharge plea of the petitioner was disallowed by the special court.
2. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI.
3. Here, the Prosecution alleges commission offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’). The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner joined the Directorate of Enforcement under the Ministry of Finance as Assistant Enforcement Officer on 06.12.1975. Later she was promoted as Assistant Director-I w.e.f 22.09.2010, and the post was re-designated as Deputy Director we.f 27.09.2011. She had been working at the Directorate of Enforcement, Calicut since 04 10.2010 as Assistant Director - I/Dy Director. As the Deputy Director, she was the head of the Zonal Office at Calicat. The second accused joined the Directorate of
The presence of prima facie evidence against a senior enforcement official justifies trial despite allegations of conspiracy being partly directed to a subordinate; discharge of one co-accused does n....
The court emphasized the necessity for prima facie evidence to proceed with a trial, underscoring that discharge petitions cannot be granted based solely on the weakness of co-accused confessions.
Discharge in corruption cases requires evaluating whether allegations present sufficient grounds for trial, relying on circumstantial evidence when direct proof is unavailable.
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of proving demand and establishing the essential ingredients of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
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 court affirmed that directing a complainant to deal with an alleged bribe collector constitutes sufficient prima facie evidence of complicity in corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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 court emphasized the serious nature of corruption in government offices and the need to prevent tampering with witnesses and destruction of evidence in corruption cases.
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
