Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947- Bribery Trap Case

Must Read

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Follow us

In Selvaraj v.State of Karnataka, (2015) 10 SCC 230 the judgment and order of acquittal passed by trial Court reversed by High Court was set aside in the particular case. An appeal was preferred in the Supreme Court against the judgment and order passed by the High Court which convicted and sentenced the appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, it reversed the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court and sentencing him for three months with a fine of Rs.50, 000/- and in default to undergo SI for six months The prosecution case briefly is , that he appellant was working as First Division Assistant in the District Treasury, Hassan. Complainant witness (CW-1), Peter Philip, contacted the accused to secure refund of loan subsidy in a sum of Rs.13, 990/ and he met him on 28.1.1988. The accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs 200 which he did not like and contacted the Lokayukta Police and lodged a complaint 1st February 1988. A trap was arranged on the same date itself by the Investigating Officer in the presence of PW-1, PW-2 and 2 officials of Zila Parishad to act as the witnesses. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the baited money and was handed over to CW-1. PW-2 was instructed to be a shadow witness.CW-1 went along with PW-2 to the said office. On demand, CW-1 paid the money to the accused. PW-2 witnessed the transaction. The phenolphthalein test was done, and the money was recovered from the possession of the accused as per the seizure memo. But the complainant CW-1 died before the commencement of the trial. But the prosecution did all the formalities. 9 witnesses, 23 documents were exhibited and 8 material objects were submitted. The Special Judge, Hassan, vides judgment and order dated 16.4.1999 acquitted the accused. On appeal, the High Court has reversed the conviction; hence, the appeal has been filed in this Court. The Supreme Court concluded that the complainant, Peter Philip, CW-1 died before the trial, as such he was not available for cross-examination. There were contradiction among the versions of PW-1 and PW-2 .The contradictions are important and could not be ignored. It was necessary for the prosecution to prove when the subsidy was paid as the I.O has stated that he seized release order of the subsidy on 12.1.1988. If it was paid on 1.2.1988 or earlier, has not been proved, because the very basis of the crime is release of subsidy, for which bribe was being demanded by the accused. Thus, acceptance of the bribe has not been established by adducing cogent evidence and that there is no issue to set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore of the Trial Court. The appeal was allowed.

Latest News

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -