Back
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
State Rep. By The Public Prosecutor, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
K. Madhavan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment of acquittal of the respondents/accused [A1 & A2] passed in C.C.No.114/2011 (Old C.C.No.15/2008) dated 31.10.2013 by the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai and convict the respondents/accused [A1 & A2] for the offences framed against them.)
1. The State is the appellant.
2. Against the order of acquittal passed in CC No.114 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, the State has preferred the appeal.
3. On behalf of the respondents, notice served and advocate has entered appearance.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(i) K.Venugopal, aged 57 S/o.T.Kannan, is the defacto complainant [PW2]. K.Madhavan-A1, is the Sub-Inspector of Survey and R.Shanmugam-A2, is the Field Assistant, both working in the office of the Tahsildar, Purasaiwakkam-Perambur Taluk Office, Chennai.
(ii) The defacto complainant presented an application in the name of his son Arun kumar at Purasaiwakkam-Perambur Taluk Office on 03.04.2007 for name transfer of patta in favor of Arunkumar.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasized that mere recovery....
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of bribes beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the charges of demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe money beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, and the permissibility of drawing inferential ....
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 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 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
