Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice N. SESHASAYEE
Mariappa – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This batch of appeals are preferred by A1 and A2, challenging the conviction and the sentence imposed by the Special Court for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption cases (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Thiruvannamalai in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2014 for offences under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). While A1 was convicted for the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act, A2 was convicted for the offences under Section 8 , 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act. The sentences imposed are as below:
| Accused | Conviction | Sentence |
| A1 | Offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment |
| Offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of of the Prevention Corruption Act, 1988 | To undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment | |
| A2 | Offence under Section 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | To undergo six months rigorous imprisonment each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default |
For conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove demand, payment, and acceptance of bribe; absence of direct witness testimony complicates establishing these elements....
The ruling emphasizes that directing another person to accept a bribe constitutes acceptance under the Prevention of Corruption Act, validating the conviction based on demand and acceptance of illega....
The prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe, leading to the acquittal of both accused.
The prosecution must establish the elements of demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe money beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money ....
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 court upheld that demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act are distinct offences, allowing for separate convictions based on the same facts.
The acceptance of bribe predicates demand, payment, and intent; a mere trap result does not equate to guilt without credible support of these components.
Establishing demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; failure to prove these elements results in acquittal.
The court established that proving demand and acceptance of bribe is essential to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with particular attention to evidence during trap operati....
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
