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. conviction under prevention of corruption act (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. prosecution's evidence of illegal gratification (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. trap procedures and evidence (Para 8 , 54 , 55 , 62 , 63) |
| 4. details of bribe demand and its evidence (Para 9 , 39 , 46) |
| 5. review of police misconduct in civil matters (Para 10 , 26) |
| 6. arguments surrounding the validity of evidence and judgments (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 75) |
| 7. sanction for prosecution validity (Para 72 , 73) |
| 8. affirmation of trial court's judgment (Para 76 , 77) |
JUDGMENT :
G.Ilangovan, J.
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
Police officials cannot exceed their authority by involving themselves in civil disputes and demanding bribes, which is prohibited under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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.
Public servants are prohibited from demanding bribes to resolve civil disputes, and evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes must be credible and established.
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.
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.
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 establish demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, which was upheld through credible evidence in this case.
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.
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
