corruption case - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing that proving the initial demand of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt is essential for conviction under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient; the prosecution failed to conclusively establish demand. The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not apply when demand is not proven, requiring strict construction of penal provisions. Facts Of The Case: C B Nagaraj, the Respondent, served as an Extension Officer in the Taluka Panchayath office, Davanagere. The Complainant, E R Krishnamurthy, sought a Validity Certificate for a teaching post under Category-II A, requiring a spot inspection report from Nagaraj. On February 7,...

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of anticipatory bail, emphasizing that custodial interrogation is crucial in corruption cases involving influential accused. It clarified that confessional statements of co-accused under Section 161 CrPC cannot be considered at the bail stage, being inadmissible under Sections 25-26 of the Evidence Act. The Court reiterated that political vendetta allegations alone cannot justify anticipatory bail when prima facie evidence exists. It directed investigating agencies to avoid third-degree methods while preserving their right to seek custodial interrogation if warranted. The judgment reaffirmed the higher threshold for anticipatory bail compared to regular bail in serious economic offences. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from allegations of corruption ...

Tag: corruption case

Supreme Court Rules Unreliable Witness & Lack of Demand Proof Sink Prosecution: Govt Official Cleared

Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Andhra Liquor Scam Case