Prevention of Corruption Act - The Legal Chamber

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

1Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

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

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,...

Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Andhra Liquor Scam Case

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 ...

Supreme Court Rules Stamp Vendors as Public Servants Under Anti-Corruption Law : Landmark Judgement

The Supreme Court held that licensed stamp vendors qualify as "public servants" under Section 2(c)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as they perform a public duty and are remunerated by the government through discounts. However, the appellant’s conviction was overturned due to insufficient proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The Court emphasized a purposive interpretation of anti-corruption laws to curb corruption effectively. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from an incident on 9 December 2003, when a complainant visited the Sub-Registrar’s Office in Janakpuri, Delhi, to purchase a stamp paper worth ₹10. The appellant, a licensed stamp vendor, allegedly demanded ₹12 instead. The complainant filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), leadin...