IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.Badharudeen
Stanley Pigarez – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Special Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A. Badharudeen, J.
Crl.Appeal No.1511/2018 is at the instance of the 1st accused in C.C.No.268/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha and he assails conviction and sentence imposed against him in the above case dated 21.11.2018.
2. Crl.Appeal No.961/2022 is at the instance of the prosecution to enhance the sentence on the ground that inadequate sentence was imposed in this case, without considering the gravity of the offence.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/1st accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the judgment under challenge and the relevant records including the depositions of the witnesses.
4. The prosecution case is that the 1st accused, who was working as the Headmaster of ‘Our Lady Shepherd Anglo Indian L.P. School’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘OLSAI L.P. School’), Kunjithai, being a public servant, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the 2nd accused, Lessly Bevero (now no more), who was the Chairman and Corporate Manager of the Central Board of Anglo Indian Education to demand an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from Smt.Suharabi and from Sri.Abdul Majeed, Kattisery House, Machanthuruth, who is the h
Prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as fact in issue; evidence of PW17 and PW18 established accused's demand and receipt of Rs.1.5 lakh, justifying conviction under ....
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 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 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 essential elements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act are crucial for securing a conviction against public servants.
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 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.
To secure conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, both demand and acceptance of a bribe must be proved. The absence of sufficient evidence to establish demand results in acquittal.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the P.C. Act; absence of direct evidence necessitates acquittal.
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.