Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.ILANGOVAN, J
Jesuraj John Bosco – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by The Inspector of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment passed in Special CC No.41 of 2014, dated 27/03/2018 by the Special Court for Trial of case under Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief:-
A1-Jesuraj John Bosco was working as Commercial Inspector and A2-Ariyamuthu was working as Inspector of Assessment in the Office of the Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Kalaiyarkovil, Sivagangai District, during the relevant period. The de-facto complainant constructed a new house at Kalaiyarkoil, Somanathamangalam Group, Mandali Village. For getting the electricity connection, on 10/08/2007 at about 10.15 am, he along with his brother-in-law namely Shanmugam met Sangiliraj, Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Kalayarkovil and gave application Form. He received the application and verified the same, signed and gave to him asking to hand over the application and service connection amount to A1-Jesuraj John Bosco. So, the de-facto complainant and his brother-in-law met A1 and gave the application and service connection amount of Rs.1,600/-. A1 received the same and demanded Rs.300/- as illegal gratification. At the request of the de-facto complainant, it was reduc
The prosecution must prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, even if the primary witness turns hostile.
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 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.
Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act upheld despite witness hostility, based on credible circumstantial evidence demonstrating bribery by a public servant.
Circumstantial evidence can substantiate a prosecution case even if the main witness turns hostile, as upheld by the court 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.
Point of law: Proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore....
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
