Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR
Mayavardharam (Died) – Appellant
Versus
State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of appeals and background of prosecution. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. detailed account of bribe demands and the prosecution's case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. defense arguments and prosecution responses. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19) |
| 4. witness credibility and contradictions over time. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 5. final judgment and modifications to sentences. (Para 60 , 61 , 62) |
JUDGMENT :
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
1. Both the Criminal appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence made in Spl.C.C.No.17 of 2014, dated 09.03.2017, on the file of the Special Court for trail of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai.
2. The case of the prosecution is:
(a) The first accused was working as a Village Administrative Officer for Kirungakottai Group Village, Manamadurai Taluk and the second accused was a Village Assistant holding the additional charge for Kirungakottai Village and are public servants as contemplated under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The complainant – Maduraiveeran is a native of Thuthikulam Village and is residing along with his wife Pappal in the house situated in S.No. 250/2015, which was originall
Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of both demand and acceptance of bribe, validated through procedural safeguards such as phenolphthalein testing.
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....
Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) PC Act; mere recovery insufficient without proof, especially absent pending official work & with hostile sha....
The evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Ac....
Point of Law : The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficie....
Mere recovery of tainted notes without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance insufficient for conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) PC Act; demand is sine qua non, presumption under Section 20 ina....
Point of law: Demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is a condition precedent for constituting an offence under the Act, it is to be noted that there is a statutory presumption ....
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
