IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.BADHARUDEEN
Sunil Kumar K, S/o. Madhava – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused, who is the sole accused in C.C. No. 153 of 2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused. The State of Kerala, represented by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), is the respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the records of the special court and the decisions placed by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned special Public Prosecutor .
3. The prosecution case is that the accused, while working as Forester on special duty at the Forest Range Office, Kasaragod, abused his official position and demanded illegal gratification from PW2 for the release of a mini lorry bearing registration No. KL-14C-99, when the said vehicle had been ordered to be released by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod, on 23.01.2012. The further allegation is that the accused negotiated with PW2 and reduced his initial demand for ₹10,000 to ₹5,000. Thereafter at about 2:30 p.m., on 0
The court reiterated that proof of demand is essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly when primary witnesses turn hostile, rendering circumstantial evidenc....
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.
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....
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.
Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant must be proved beyond reasonable doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act for conviction.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; mere receipt of bribe without evidence of demand is insuffic....
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.
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....
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.