Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.Badharudeen
K.K.Salim – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
A. Badharudeen, J.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash Annexure-1 FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.VC.01/2021/CRE of VACB, Southern Range, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner herein is the 3rd accused in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the documents placed by both sides.
3. Parties in this petition shall be referred as ‘accused Nos.1, 2 and 3’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.
4. Short facts:- The defacto complainant holds a contract license under the Kerala Forest Department. He was engaged in the contract work of the Forest Department at Attingal in Thiruvananthapuram Range. In 2020, the complainant was awarded the contract for the maintenance of compensatory afforestation at Kerala University Campus, Karyavattam, in lieu of tree felling for the Vizhinjam International Seaport Project. Smt.Divya Rose, the 1st accused, being the Range O Social Forestry Division, was responsible for passing the bills submitted for the work undertaken by the complainant. The complainant filed a complaint before the Vigilance an
Demand and acceptance of bribe are essential for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act; without sufficient evidence, proceedings should be quashed.
High Court would persuade to exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and to quash criminal proceedings to avoid or to prevent abuse of process of court and secure ends of justice.
Prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction; mere acceptance of bribe is inadequate.
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....
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.
Prevention of corruption - Demand of bribe - Trap Case - only on the basis of recovery of the tainted money, conviction of the Appellant is not sustainable.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money cannot establish charges without evidence of demand.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific and credible evidence to establish the commission of a cognizable offence, especially in cases involving allegations of....
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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
