Topic
Kerala High Court reaffirms that conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires strict proof of both demand and acceptance of bribe by a public servant. The ruling underscores that mere recovery of money without evidence of demand does not suffice for conviction, impacting anti-corruption prosecutions.
Allahabad High Court rules that trap evidence, phenolphthalein test, and corroborative testimony are sufficient to convict a public servant under Section 161 IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, even without the complainant's testimony. The judgment reinforces the admissibility of scientific evidence in bribery cases, setting a precedent for anti-corruption prosecutions.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that attesting a mutation based on a sale certificate does not meet the essential ingredients of forgery under Section 464 IPC, as it lacks fraudulent or dishonest intent. The judgment clarifies the distinction between civil wrongs and criminal liability for public servants in revenue administration.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that a public servant cannot escape criminal liability under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, merely by claiming to have acted under superior orders. The court held that active participation in illegal acts, such as misappropriation of seized cash, negates any immunity, reinforcing accountability for unlawful conduct in official duties.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a public servant commits an offence merely by demanding or accepting a bribe-even if they lack the official authority to perform the requested act. This clarifies that the law targets the corrupt act itself, not the outcome, strengthening accountability across all levels of public service.
Punjab & Haryana HC refuses anticipatory bail to an ASI for allegedly altering an FIR from a 'baseball bat' to a 'dattar' (sharp weapon), emphasizing that deliberate manipulation of official records by a public servant undermines judicial integrity and warrants custodial interrogation. The ruling reinforces accountability for police officers tampering with evidence.
Bombay High Court affirms that corroborative testimony from the complainant and shadow panch regarding a ₹7,000 bribe demand for cheque signature establishes guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, rejecting procedural inconsistencies as grounds for acquittal. The ruling underscores that minor lapses in trap execution do not override substantive evidence of corruption by public servants.