Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

MERE RECOVERY OF TAINTED MONEY IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT ACCUSED

Other Topics - By: - Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN - Dated:- 15-11-2017 - It is well settled that the initial burden proving that the accused accepted or obtained the amount other than legal remuneration is upon the prosecution. It is only when this initial burden regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is successfully discharged by the prosecution, then the burden of proving the defence shifts upon the accused and a presumption would arise under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

owing it to be bribe. In Mukut Bhihar V. State of Rajasthan - 2012 (5) TMI 771 - SUPREME COURT, the Supreme Court held that 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 sufficient to convict the accused, when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as brib .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n 7 of the 1988 act. While invoking the provisions of section 20 of the Act,the Court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused in called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the offence under section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. In V. Sejappa V. State of Police Inspector, Lokayukta, Chitradurga - 2016 (4) TMI 1285 - SUPREME COURT one Shri Ramakrishnappa filed oral complaint before the Police Inspector of Lokayukata, Chitradurga alleging that on 09.12.1997, the accused demanded a sum of ₹ 5000 as illegal gratification from him for handing over no objection certificat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in a diary and the diary was kept inside his table. On receiving signal from the complainant the raiding party went to the office of the accused and questioned the accused and recovered the amount of ₹ 5000 from the accused. The accused also tested positive when his right hand was immersed in the sodium carbonate solution. After getting necessary sanction from the Government and on completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences abovementioned. Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e the accused and thus acquitted the accused of all charges. Against the order of acquittal the State filed appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal of the State holding that the prosecution has proved the appellant s demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and held the accused guilty of offences. The High Court sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for six months under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption act and further sentenced him to under to two y .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

12.1997 on account of his official duty in attending a seminar in Bangalore and that on the evening of 10.12.1997, the appellant along with PW7 had taken a delivery of a van allotted to Chitradurga PHE, sub division at Bangalore; The High Court erred in ignoring the testimony of PW2 who has specifically stated that the complainant gave a sum of ₹ 5000 to the appellant stating that he was returning the money which was taken by him for purchase of diesel; The High Court failed to properly ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rt considered the rival contentions and perused the judgments of trial court and High Court. The Supreme Court observed that as per the evidence of PW8, S. Sampath, Under Secretary to Government, PWD, the file regarding the sanction for prosecuting the appellant was submitted to the Secretary, PWD and the same was forwarded to PWD Minister and upon being satisfied PWD Minister granted the sanction. After that PW8 issued sanction order and thus the PW8 was only carrying out the decision of the Go .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version