IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN
Ramachandran S/o Velayudhan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
1. Sole accused in C.C.No.35/2008 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, has preferred this appeal, challenging conviction and sentence imposed against him in the above case dated 28.1.2010. Respondent herein is the State of Kerala.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the judgment under challenge along with the records of the Special Court.
3. In a nutshell, the prosecution allegation is that, on 18.4.2005, the accused, who was working as Assistant Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board Section Office, Mavelikkara, demanded Rs.5,000/- from Sri.B.Vijayakumar, the complainant, as illegal gratification as a motive for sanctioning bill for the works executed by him in relation to Karunamattom Devaswom under the Mavelikkara group of Devaswom Board. The further case is that, pursuant to the said demand, at 11.40 a.m. on 20.04.2005, the accused demanded and accepted Rs.5,000/-. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Ac
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 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.
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 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 essential elements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act are crucial for securing a conviction against public servants.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant must be proved beyond reasonable doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act for conviction.
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.
The prosecution must prove both demand and acceptance of bribe for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; credible evidence supporting the accused's guilt suffices against claims of innoc....
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can be established through circumstantial evidence and testimony from witnesses, despite hostility.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.