Prevention of Corruption Act 1988

Conspiracy in Construction: Supreme Court Slams Builder & Officials for Violating Zoning Rules

8Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Conspiracy in Construction: Supreme Court Slams Builder & Officials for Violating Zoning Rules

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the Kerala High Court's decision to proceed with criminal charges under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy). The Court ruled that obtaining a fraudulent permit for illegal construction in a prohibited zone constituted a criminal conspiracy with municipal officials. The attempt to regularise the unauthorised building did not absolve the appellant of liability. The Court distinguished the architect's case, noting lack of active involvement in the conspiracy. Charges were affirmed, emphasising strict enforcement of anti-corruption laws. Facts Of The Case: The case involves G. Mohandas, the owner of a building in Vanchiyoor Village, Thiruvanantha...

Public Servant’s Spouse Can Be Convicted for Aiding Corruption: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Corruption Case: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(1)(e) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, ruling that a non-public servant (appellant) can abet the offence of possessing disproportionate assets by aiding a public servant (her husband). Relying on P. Nallammal (1999), the Court held that concealing illicit assets in the appellant’s name constituted intentional aid under Section 107 IPC, irrespective of marital status. The 2018 amendment to Section 12 of the PC Act (explicitly punishing abetment) was noted, though the offence was abettable even prior. The judgment reaffirms that abetment charges apply when a person facilitates the concealment of disproportionate wealth. Facts Of The Case: The case involves P. Shanthi Pugazhenthi, an As...

Supreme Court Acquits Revenue Officer in Bribery Case Citing Lack of Proof : No Proven Demand, No Conviction

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a revenue officer under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, thus negating the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Partiala Sudhakar, a Revenue Inspector in the Mandal Revenue Office, Gundala Mandal, Nalgonda District, who was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that on August 6, 2003, Sudhakar demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,000 from the complainant (PW1) to process his application for drought compensation for damaged trees. When PW1 expressed inability to pay, Sudhakar ...