Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.BADHARUDEEN
Abdul Rahim Kalanad Aboobacker, S/o. Aboobacker – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation, Represented By Special Public Prosecutor of CBI, High Court Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Accused Nos.14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27 and 30 have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , and the prayer in this petition is as follows:
“to quash Annexure-I Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1/2023 on the files of the Hon’ble Court of the Additional Special Sessions Judge (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam arising out of FIR No.RC 02(A)/2021-CBI/ACB, Cochin.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI in detail. Perused the relevant documents.
3. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 12 0B r/w 409 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) as well as under Sections 7 , 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (as amended in 2018) (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC (Amendment) Act, 2018’). As per the final report filed by the CBI, 122 charges specifically raised against different accused persons.
4. The specific allegation against the petitioners is as follows:
On 12.01.2021, the 14th accused conspired with the 9th accused, a customs inspector, who
Evidence must substantiate illegal gratification claims for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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.
A discharge petition is only granted if no prima facie evidence exists to support the charges; involvement is determined by the prosecution's presented evidence.
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential to establish charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere possession of tainted currency does not constitute an offence.
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 burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.
Demand and acceptance of bribery must be proven for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which can be established through circumstantial evidence.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is essential for establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was satisfactorily proved in this case.
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
