Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.34 seconds)Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
State Of Kerala & Anr vs C.P. Rao on 16 May, 2011
The mere recovery by itself
cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in
the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show
that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be
bribe.”
In State of Kerala and Anr. v. C.P. Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450, it was held
that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the
accused and there has to be corroboration of the testimony of the
complainant regarding the demand of bribe.
Mukut Bihari & Anr vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 May, 2012
20. While dealing with the contention that it is not enough that
some currency notes were handed over to the public servant to make
it illegal gratification and that the prosecution has a further duty to
prove that what was paid was an illegal gratification, reference can be
made to following observation in Mukut Bihari and Anr. v. State of
Rajasthan (2012) 11 SCC 642, wherein it was held as under:-
T. Subramanian vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 January, 2006
The same view was reiterated in T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. (2006)
1 SCC 401.
B.Jayaraj vs State Of A.P on 28 March, 2014
“7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a
settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine
qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of
currency notes cannot constitute 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. The above
position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this
Court.