Back
G. CHANDRASEKHARAN
A. Velmurugan – Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in Spl.Case No.13 of 2013, on the file of the Special Judge for Vigilance and Anti corruption cases, Villupuram, Villupuram District and set aside the conviction and judgment dated 31.03.2015.)
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed to call for the records in Spl.Case No.13 of 2013, on the file of the Special Judge for Vigilance and Anti corruption cases, Villupuram, Villupuram District and set aside the conviction and judgment dated 31.03.2015.
2. The final report is filed against the appellant A.Velmurugan and co-accused A.Perumal alleging that appellant A.Velmurugan is the first accused in this case and was working as Village Administrative Officer in V.Puthur Village. The second accused was the Village Assistant serving under the first accused and both of them are public servants as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On 28.12.2001, and on subsequent dates, lastly on 02.01.2002, appellant demanded from the defacto complainant Ramamurthy a sum of Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration and after negotiatio
The proof of demand is essential to establish the charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute the offence unless th....
The judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and minor contradictions in evidence ma....
The need to establish demand and acceptance for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the requirement to consider the defense's explanation and motive for false implicat....
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt to establish the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential to establish the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of the amount is not sufficient to prove the charge.
The prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt, requiring independent corroboration, particularly when the key witness has credibility issues.
The proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for establishing the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove the case beyond all reason....
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
