Back
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
D. Balaganapathi – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Namakkal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment of dated 02.12.2015 in Special C.C.No.7 of 2022 passed by the learned Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate at Namakkal.)
1. Convicted sole accused is the appellant herein.
2. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction imposed on him by sentencing him to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo two months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 imposed in the judgment dated 02.12.2015 made in Special C.C.No.7 of 2002 on the file of the learned Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal.
3. The respondent police filed a final report before the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal alleging that
(i) D.Balaganapaty, the appellant herein who worked as Village Administrative Officer, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namak
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 beyond reasonable doubt to establish the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the accused's entitl....
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 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 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....
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....
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
