SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1924 Supreme(Mad) 383

JACKSON
In Re: Pulipati Venkiah – Appellant
Versus
Unknown – Respondent


ORDER

Jackson, J.

1. The petitioner has been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1oo for " receiving a bribe of Rs. 20 from a villager on the understanding that he would get him some land on darkhast in his capacity as Karnam, an offence punishable under Section 161, Indian Penal Code (vide Charge)."

2. The villager (prosecution 1st witness) says that he gave the Karnam Rs. 20 as he promised that he would get Government land for him. He got the land but only half as much as he expected. The learned Sessions Judge takes the complaint to be that the Karnam was given the bribe in the hope that he would recommend the grant of land. He managed to convince the parties that the land was as good as got, and so the charge is proved that the Karnam promised to get the land for the villager.

3. It is difficult to say from all this exactly what the Karnam is supposed to have done. In a charge under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, it must be shown that the accused took the bribe as a motive for doing an official act. But getting darkhasts is not the official act of a Karnam. He may have cheated the villager into thinking that he was the official who granted darkhasts; bu


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top