Prevention of Corruption Act 1988

S. Vijayan v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 – Investigation cannot be ordered on the basis of a complaint which is not supported by genuine materials. The Court must be satisfied that an offence is ‘disclosed’ by the materials produced by the complainant. (2021) 11 KCC 401

V.M. Ashraf v. State of Kerala

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Can a possession certificate issued by the Village Officer be considered as a ‘valuable thing’ within the purview of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act ? (2021) 11 KCC 386

J. Rajesh Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Criminal Law – Whether exoneration of a public servant in the departmental proceeding would ipso facto constitute sufficient ground for exonerating him of the charges based on same facts in the criminal proceeding ?

State v. Syed Shaikoya

  • Order

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Ss. 197 & 239 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Ss. 7, 12 & 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) – Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 468, 471, 420 & 120B – The Directorate of Education of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep had directed to supply, free of cost, ready-made uniforms to the school children for the academic year 2005-06 – Allegation against accused 4 and 8 is that they blindly accepted the certificate issued by Accused No.9 without conducting inspection of the uniform materials and consequently, sub-standard materials happened to be purchased – The prosecution has no case that accused 4 and 8 were experts in the field to assess the quality of dress materials – When accused 4 and 8 agreed with the report given by the expert member, it cannot be found that their act had no reasonable connection with their official duties. Therefore, it was necessary to obtain sanction under Section 197 of the Code for prosecution against them. Cognizance of the offences taken against them, without such sanction, was bad in law. 2021 (5) KCC 9

M. Sulfiker v. State of Kerala

  • Order

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Framing of Charge – In order to frame charge against the accused, a strong suspicion is sufficient. A microscopic examination of the materials produced by the prosecution is not warranted at that stage. The evaluation of the materials produced by the prosecution shall be conducted by the court only for the limited purpose of finding out whether any prima facie case is made out against the accused. 2021 (5) KCC 6

T.O. Sooraj v. State of Kerala

  • Order

Criminal Law – Accused has no right to seek change of investigating officer. 2021 (4) KCC 61 : 2021 (4) KHC 276 : 2021 (3) KLJ 482