Back
G. JAYACHANDRAN
D. Thangavelu – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by, Inspector of Police, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., pleased to allow this Criminal Appeal, set aside the judgment dated 11.01.2016 passed by the Hon''ble Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur, in Spl.Case No.13 of 2010, pass such other orders.)
1. The appellant herein is the accused in Special Case No.13 of 2010, on the file of Special Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Thiruvallur. The accused was tried for the offences under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Learned Trial Judge, on appreciating the testimony of 10 witnesses, 12 documents and 7 material objects found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Sentenced him to undergo two years R.I and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default three months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The period of sentence ordered to be run concurrently. The period of imprisonment already undergone ordered to be se
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.
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 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.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of bribe money without establishing demand is insufficient.
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 judgment underscores the requirement of proof beyond doubt in corruption cases and highlights the importance of considering material contradictions in the evidence. It also emphasizes the need fo....
The evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Ac....
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
