IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.BADHARUDEEN
A.K.Rajendran, S/o.Kumaran – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
The appellant, who was convicted and sentenced by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, in C.C.No. 16/1998 by judgment dated 29.07.2006, has preferred this appeal, challenging the said conviction and sentence on multiple grounds. The State of Kerala is the respondent herein.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the evidence available in the records of the Special Court and the decisions placed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. In a nutshell, the prosecution allegation is that, the accused demanded Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as illegal gratification from PW1, Sri.Paul Varghese, as a motive or reward for not making any reduction in the value of improvements of the land acquired for Kochi International Airport and for disbursing the compensation. Accordingly, he demanded and accepted Rs.10,000/- on 05.09.1997 and again, Rs.15,000/- was demanded and accepted on 19.09.1997 and he was trapped along with Rs.15,000/- by the trap team. Accordingly, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 7 as well as
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....
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 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.
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.
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.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the P.C. Act; absence of direct evidence necessitates acquittal.
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 is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
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....
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.