Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mr. Justice G. Ilangovan, J
Tmt.Vanithai – Appellant
Versus
State through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.Ilangovan, J.
This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Theni, in Special Case NO.5 of 2014, dated 30/08/2018.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief:-
(i) A1 while holding additional charge as Junior Engineer in Pannaipuram Town Panchayat, was in-charge of the construction work that was being carried out by the complainant. On the completion of the said construction work, the complainant approached her for issuance of the completion certificate required for claiming the bill amount.
(ii) It was alleged that A1 demanded Rs.25,000/- at about 02.00 pm, on 10/02/2009 from PW2 as bribe for issuing the said completion certificate. When the complainant explained his financial position, it was reduced to Rs.12,000/- saying that she and Assistant Executive Engineer would take Rs.5,000/- each, the balance amount would be given to A2. She further instructed him to pay the amount of Rs.12,000/- on 10/02/2009. Not willing to bribe, he lodged a complaint. Based upon the complaint, trap was laid. Case in Crime No.1 of 2009 was registered under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act . The accused were arrested during trap. A
The prosecution must prove corruption charges beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in evidence may lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, even if the primary witness turns hostile.
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 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 prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe, leading to the acquittal of both accused.
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 prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, which was upheld through credible evidence in this case.
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
