News By/Courtesy: Ojaswi Gupta | 31 Aug 2019 22:07pm IST

HIGHLIGHTS

  • The validity of nature of law in absence of primary evidence of the complainant due to his death.
  • Court relying on other evidences while raising a presumption under statute, regardless of the absence of primary evidence of the complainant.
  • Nature and standard of evidence imperative to sustain a conviction for the offence under section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988

The present reference concerns the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arises out of the order dated 28.02.2019 which was passed by a two-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the concerned bench expressed certain dubiety as to the validity of position of law. The court in case of P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another, (2015) 10 SCC 152, discussed about the validity of nature of law while stating that in absence of primary evidence of the complainant due to his death, a reasoned deduction in order to sustain a conviction under section 7, 13(1) (d) (i) and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was forbidden by law.

Nonetheless, the court widened the order dated 28.02.19 by fore fronting numerous judgements, such as Kishan Chand Mangal v. the State of Rajasthan, (1982) 3 SCC 466; Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Administration), (1980) 2 SCC 390; and M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691, wherein the Court, relying on the other evidences, sustained conviction of the accused while raising a presumption under statute, regardless of the absence of primary evidence of the complainant due to his death.

 While taking into consideration that two three-judge benches are in disaccord with previous three-judge benches in the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55; and P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2015) 10 SCC 152 and M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P.,(2001) 1 SCC 691, respectively, regarding nature and standard of evidence imperative to sustain a conviction for the offence under section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 in absence of the primary evidence of the complainant.

The concerned bench, therefore, referred to the raised question of law to be decided by a bench of appropriate strength.

 

Section Editor: Shrishti Mittal | 31 Aug 2019 23:15pm IST


Tags : #corruption #SC #evidences

Latest News

























5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice


Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.