Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.ILANGOVAN, J
K.Balakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.Ilangovan, J.
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai, in Spl. Case No.24 of 2011 and acquit the appellant.
2.The case of the prosecution is that PW2 and PW4 are brothers. They purchased one house from TNHB on instalment basis. The accused is an employee of TNHB. On 07/03/2007, PW2 met the accused and got the house allotment order. Thereafter, on 08/06/2007, PW4 met the accused in his office and asked for sale deed. He informed PW2 about his visit to TNHB office. PW4 told PW2 that the accused asked him to bring stamp papers for Rs.3,300/-, type expenses Rs.200/- and Rs.500/- as bribe. Not willing to bribe, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint with the respondent police. Based upon the complaint, a case in Crime No.4 of 2007 was registered for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . The accused was arrested in the trap. After completing the investigation, final report was filed. It was taken on file by the Special Court for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corrupti
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.
Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act upheld despite witness hostility, based on credible circumstantial evidence demonstrating bribery by a public servant.
The prosecution must prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, even if the primary witness turns hostile.
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 prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, which was upheld through credible evidence in this case.
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 court upheld the conviction of a public servant for bribery, confirming that absence of motive for false implication supports the integrity of the prosecution's case.
Police officials cannot exceed their authority by involving themselves in civil disputes and demanding bribes, which is prohibited under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Public servants are prohibited from demanding bribes to resolve civil disputes, and evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes must be credible and established.
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
