You will find here two important Case Laws On Corruption Matters.
C. CHANDRASEKARAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and 20 – Appeal against Conviction – Illegal Gratification – Presumption – Though there is variation in their version as regards the actual words uttered by the appellant, both PWs 1 and 3 are consistent that such demand was made – Both are again consistent that money was made over by PW-3 complainant which was received in right hand by the appellant, that the money was kept by the appellant in the hip pocket of the trouser and that the right hand of the appellant upon being dipped in the solution turned pink, whereas his left hand did not -As regards other features of the matter i.e. after the raiding party had entered the Police Station, they also stand corroborated by the other witnesses – Immediate explanation offered by the appellant was that the money was thrust into his pocket but this was given up and the appellant remained silent – In the absence of any evidence offered by the appellant to explain the circumstances, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act was not in any way rebutted and the prosecution case stood completely established.
YUNUS ZIA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 2(d) and 482 – Penal Code, 1860, Sections 120-B, 420 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) – Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, Section 9,8 and 7 – Quashing of proceedings – Acting suo motu to register FIR on basis of newspaper report – Jurisdiction – There is a cognizable offence to be investigated by the police against the appellant –Same cannot be found fault with for the reason that the second respondent, who is on deputation to the Lokayukta, is an Inspector of Police attached to the State of Karnataka – He has got every power under Section 2(d) of the CrPC, to act suo-moto and take cognizance of the offence/offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant on the basis of the reports published against him, which according to him warranted registration of an FIR and investigate the matter against him in accordance with law – To see that justice is meted out and the case is fairly investigated by the Corps of Detectives (COD) of the State the said investigation entrusted to an officer of the rank equivalent to the Superintendent of Police in the COD.
KEDARI LAL Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) – Appeal against Conviction –Conviction on charge of possessing assets in excess of ‘known sources of income” – Every single amount received by the appellant has been proved on record through the testimony of the witnesses and is also supported by contemporaneous documents and intimations to the Government – Fact that these amounts were actually received from the sources so named is not in dispute – These amounts reflected in the Income Tax Returns filed by the appellant – If the amounts in question are thus deducted, the alleged disproportionate assets stand reduced to Rs. 37,605, which is less than 10 % of the income of the Appellant – Benefit granted to the public servant and held that there is no violation of Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act – Judgment and order in appeal liable to be set aside and the appellant liable to be acquitted of the charges leveled against him.
There are many Case Laws On Corruption Matters but by reading these an individual cannot assume his case completely. For that individual requires a good Criminal Lawyer.