Back
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
A. Duraisamy – Appellant
Versus
State Represented by Inspector of Police, Salem – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C, r/w Section 27 of the P.C.Act, to set aside the order and acquit the appellant who has been convicted by the Special Judge (Special Court for Trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act) Salem made in Special Case No.22 of 2014, dated 18.11.2016.)
1. The convicted sole accused is the appellant herein.
2. This Criminal Appeal is filed against his conviction and the sentence passed by the Special Judge (Special Court for Trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act) Salem made in Special Case No.22 of 2014 dated 18.11.2016 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and sentenced him to undergo R.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for another 6 months; convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for another 6 months for offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the sentences are ordered to be undergone by the accused concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution is that:
(a) The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and
The judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proven as a fact, and the prosecution can rely on direct or circumstantial evidence to establish guilt.
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 prosecution must prove the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification, and once these foundational facts are proved, there is a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Co....
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.
Illegal gratification – Allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond reasonable doubt – Mere possession or recovery of currency notes is ....
The court reiterated that proof of demand and acceptance is essential to establish corruption charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a fact in issue, which can be done through direct evidence, documentary evidence, or circumstantial evidence.
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
