Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Selvaraj – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Thanjavur – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to conviction based on unlawful demands. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. evidence of demands for illegal gratification was corroborated. (Para 10 , 26 , 46) |
| 3. final confirmation of past convictions and sentences. (Para 30 , 34 , 78) |
| 4. court's displeasure over police involvement in civil disputes. (Para 33 , 59 , 70) |
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court-cum -Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam in Special Case No.61 of 2014, dated 14/03/2018.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The first accused was working as Inspector, second accused as Head Constable and third accused as Sub Inspector of Police in the Ayyampettai Police Station during 2003. On 01/03/2003, the de-facto complainant gave a complaint against his sister Mallika with regard to civil dispute between them. It was received by the police officials, for which, receipt was given in CSR No.81 of 2003. That was enquired by the police officials. Again, on 31/05/2003 the de-facto complainant gave another complaint, which was also received and CSR No.198 of 2003 was issued. On 06/07/2003 at about 09.30 am, when the accused person e
Police officials cannot involve themselves in civil disputes and demand bribes for resolution; prosecutions require valid sanction from superior officers, which was upheld in this 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.
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 conviction of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act is upheld based on established evidence of bribery, reaffirming the necessity of fair procedure in trial.
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.
The prosecution must prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, even if the primary witness turns hostile.
Circumstantial evidence can substantiate a prosecution case even if the main witness turns hostile, as upheld by the court in this case.
The prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, which was upheld through credible evidence in this case.
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.
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
