IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.BADHARUDEEN
M.G.Ajaykumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused in C.C. No.169/2016 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge as per the judgment dated 30.11.2017. The State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the sole respondent herein.
2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge, the records of the trial court as well as the decisions placed by the learned senior counsel for the appellant.
3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.
4. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, the accused, while working as the Block Development Officer, Devikulam, demanded Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification from one Geetha Aji, W/o Aji K.K, examined as PW4, for releasing the balance amount of the housing grant sanctioned to her. In continuation of the said demand, the accused demanded and accepted the bribe money at 4.30 p.m. on 11.09.2013, as deposed by Gee
The conviction of the accused was upheld for demanding and accepting bribe, reinforced by testimony establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court established that proving demand and acceptance of bribe is essential to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with particular attention to evidence during trap operati....
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....
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.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the P.C. Act; absence of direct evidence necessitates acquittal.
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 the demand and acceptance of bribe for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish guilt.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
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 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.