MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction of Village Officer for Accepting Bribe

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Kerala High Court has upheld the conviction of K.R. Muhammed Nazer, a former Village Officer, for accepting a bribe. The judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath on June 16, 2023.

The case, Criminal Appeal No. 1692 of 2013, arose from an incident in 2006 when the appellant, while serving as a Village Officer in Wagamon Village, allegedly obtained ₹650/- as a bribe from a complainant in exchange for providing a location map. The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, had earlier convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

During the appeal proceedings, the appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe. However, the High Court, after considering the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the testimony of the decoy witness and other witnesses, found that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification had been amply proved.

The court emphasized that although there were minor contradictions in the evidence, they were insignificant and did not undermine the prosecution's case. It further noted that circumstantial evidence, such as the positive results of the phenolphthalein test, supported the conclusion that the appellant had accepted the tainted currency notes.

The defense had also presented a witness to support the appellant's version of events, but the court, after evaluating the witness's demeanor and considering the lack of corroborating evidence, found the defense witness unreliable.

Consequently, the High Court held that the appellant, in his capacity as a public servant, had abused his official position and accepted the illegal gratification. The conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act was deemed justified.

Regarding the sentence, the court upheld the trial court's decision, which had sentenced the appellant to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000/- under Section 7, and one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹15,000/- under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act. The sentence was considered reasonable, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case.

Date of Decision:  16 June, 2023

K.R. MUHAMMED NAZER  vs STATE OF KERALA

Latest Legal News