Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
A.S.Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
State through, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.Ilangovan, J.
This Criminal Appeal is filed against judgment of conviction and sentence imposed in Special C.C No.3 of 2014, dated 30/10/2018 by the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The accused Dr.A.S.Ramesh was working as Senior Assistant Surgeon in the Government Hospital Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District between 03/08/2001 and 01/03/2005. One Nallammal was admitted as an inpatient in the Female Ward in the Government Hospital, Srivilliputhur on 15/02/2005 for her head injury. She was taking treatment as inpatient from 15/02/2005 to 08/03/2005. The accused, who attended on her duty during that period suggested to her husband V.Jothirajan for scanning her head at the Head Quarters Government Hospital, Virudhunagar. When V.Jothirajan requested the accused to give his requisition for CT scan, the accused told him that he would give the letter. On 28/02/2005 at about 04.00 pm, when V.Jothirajan along with his friend M.Marimuthu met the accused at the Government Hospital, Srivilliputhur and requested his reference for CT scan, he demanded Rs.300/- as bribe. Not willing to bribe, the de-facto complainant lodg
Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act upheld despite witness hostility, based on credible circumstantial evidence demonstrating bribery by a public servant.
The court upheld the conviction for bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the burden on the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt when money is recovered.
The prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, which was upheld through credible evidence in this case.
The prosecution must prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, even if the primary witness turns hostile.
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....
Point of law: Proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore....
Acceptance of bribes and the legitimacy of prosecution evidence under the Prevention of Corruption Act were affirmed, with modifications to sentencing based on the appellant's health and age.
The court affirmed that a valid sanction and credible evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes are essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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
