Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.BADHARUDEEN
V.P. Asokan, S/o. Kelappan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala, Representing Dy.SP; Vigilance And Anti-Corruption Bureau – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the denial of demand for bribe by the complainant hampers the prosecution's case. (Para 1 , 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. the court viewed the evidence and witness testimonies regarding the occurrence and accepted circumstances. (Para 2 , 4 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. proof of demand and acceptance is critical for establishing offenses under the prevention of corruption act. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. the appeal was allowed and the accused acquitted based on insufficient proof of demand. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is at the instance of the sole accused in C.C.No.33/2007 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, arising out of VC No.05/2005 of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kozhikode, challenging conviction and sentence imposed against him in the said case, as per judgment dated 08.02.2013.
3. In this case, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter), on the premise that the accused, while working as Village Man in the Village Office at Kakkoor, abused his official position as public servant and demanded an ill
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
