Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
A. Subair vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2009
In A.Subair vs. State of
Kerala, 2009(4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.)(S.C.) 465 = (2009) 6 SCC
587, this Court propounded that the prosecution in order to
prove the charge under the above provisions has to establish
by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of the illegal
gratification and till that is accomplished, the accused should
be considered to be innocent.
B.Jayaraj vs State Of A.P on 28 March, 2014
In P.Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), this Court
took note of its verdict in B.Jayaraj vs. State of A.P., 2014
MhLJ Online (Cri)(S.C.) 33 = (2014) 13 SCC 55
underlining that mere possession and recovery of currency
notes from an accused without proof of demand would not
establish an offence under section 7 as well as section 13(1)
State Of Kerala & Anr vs C.P. Rao on 16 May, 2011
(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It was recounted as well that in the
absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the
use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2018 00:39:39 :::
CRI. AEAL 283/03 12 Judgment
public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage cannot be held to be proved. Not only the proof of
demand thus was held to be an indispensable essentiality and
an inflexible statutory mandate for an offence under sections
7 and 13 of the Act, it was held as well qua section 20 of the
Act, that any presumption thereunder would arise only on
such proof of demand. This Court thus in P. Satyanarayana
Murthy (supra) on a survey of its earlier decisions on the pre-
1