Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SESHASAYEE
J. Pandiaraj (Died) – Appellant
Versus
State by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N. SESHASAYEE, J.
1. The appellants herein are the legal representatives of a certain Pandiaraj who was convicted by the Special Court for V & AC Cases (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Dharmapuri in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2012, for offences under Section 7 and Section 13 (2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and imposed with a sentence of one year simple imprisonment and with a fine of Rs.2,500/- for each of the charges, and on his failure to pay the fine, Pandiaraj was directed to undergo a default clause of one month simple imprisonment.
2.1 The case of the prosecution unfolds as below :
a) On or before 13.05.2010, Pandiaraj was working as the Inspector of Police at Karimangalam Police Station in Dharmapuri District.
b) On his file, P.W.2 faced investigation for two independent crimes based on Ext.P21 FIR in Crime No.649/2010 dated 20.07.2010 and in Ext.P7 FIR in Crime No.751 of 2010 dated 25.08.2010. In the second mentioned case, P.W.2 was arraigned as accused along with P.W.4 and others, and the nature of accusation against him involveed commission of cognizable crimes.
c) In this circumstances, P.W.2 and some of the accused persons in Crime No.751 of 2010 move
The acceptance of bribe predicates demand, payment, and intent; a mere trap result does not equate to guilt without credible support of these components.
The court affirmed that a valid sanction and credible evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes are essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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....
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe as a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence beyond the complainant's testimony....
Statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and can be utilised only to corroborate or contradict the witness vis-a-vis statement made in court. In other words, it can be utilised on....
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....
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of currency notes is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
When clouds of doubt arises on the part of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt is always accrued on the part of the accused alone, which is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery syste....
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
