lawlibrary.online — Bare Acts, Rules and Judgments

LOK 2026 (11) Ker. 114 · High Court of Kerala

State of Kerala v. M.H. Shabeer

Equivalent citations: 2026 KER 86476

An acquittal in a bribery trap case resting on one isolated answer of the complainant in cross-examination was set aside; read as a whole, the evidence proved demand and acceptance, and the officer was convicted.

LOK 2026 (11) SC 60 · Supreme Court of India

Vishwajeet Singh @ Bishwajeet Ramanand v. State of Bihar

The Court observed that judicial custody for more than 48 hours results in deemed suspension of a public servant. It asked Bihar to examine the appellant’s return to the same post at the same hospital after revocation of his suspension and to act in accordance…

LOK 2026 (11) Ker. 51 · High Court of Kerala

V.G. Balanchandraji v. State of Kerala

Equivalent citations: 2026 KER 84870

Bribe money placed in the measurement book at the accused’s direction proved demand and acceptance despite a negative phenolphthalein test on his hands; conviction of the Panchayat Assistant Engineer under the PC Act confirmed, with the sentence reduced to the one-year minimum.

LOK 2026 (11) Ker. 32 · High Court of Kerala

Vincent Joseph Chowalloor v. State

Equivalent citations: 2026 KER 84142

The prosecution materials, including witness statements and the positive phenolphthalein test, disclosed prima facie involvement or strong suspicion sufficient to proceed to trial. Proof of demand and acceptance remained a matter for evidence at trial. The Court vacated the interim stay and directed the Special…

LOK 2026 (11) Ker. 1 · High Court of Kerala

K.K. Soman v. State of Kerala

Equivalent citations: 2026 KER 80599

A Tribal Extension Officer was convicted by the Special Judge for misappropriating wages meant for tribal beneficiaries under the Food Support Programme for 1996–1997. Of ₹2,55,120 handed over to him, only ₹13,080 was shown as disbursed in the muster rolls. In a companion case tried…

LOK 2026 (10) SC 282 · Supreme Court of India

V. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Equivalent citations: 2026 INSC 1172

Once the prosecution proves disproportion between a public servant’s assets and known lawful income, he must account for it with credible, verifiable material; the conviction for disproportionate assets was upheld.

LOK 2026 (10) SC 211 · Supreme Court of India

Pinarayi Vijayan v. K.M. Shajahan

The learned Single Judge of the High Court, in a writ petition where the prospective accused were not impleaded, quashed the State Government’s order constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for conducting a preliminary enquiry and directed the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to…

LOK 2026 (10) SC 160 · Supreme Court of India

Mahesh Chandra Joshi v. State of Rajasthan

Equivalent citations: 2026 INSC 1141

The appellants were accused in the Jal Jeevan Mission tender case in Rajasthan, in which two firms allegedly won public-health tenders worth ₹979.45 crore using forged IRCON certificates. The High Court refused them bail. The Supreme Court accepted that allegations of large-scale fraud in a…

LOK 2026 (10) SC 168 · Supreme Court of India

Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan

Equivalent citations: 2026 INSC 1147

Whether prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) is mandatory before initiating an enquiry, inquiry, or investigation against a public servant alleged to have demanded a bribe ?

LOK 2026 (10) Ker. 161 · High Court of Kerala

State Represented by CBI/SPE, Cochin by Inspector of Police v. Jayaraman Gopal

Equivalent citations: 2026 KER 80195

Where public servants in a public sector undertaking (HOCL) allegedly bypassed lower quotes and tender norms to purchase imported Cumene at enhanced rates ($688/MT instead of $663/MT) from a private supplier without prior approval of the Purchase Committee or Board, causing an alleged loss of…

LOK 2026 (10) Ker. 151 · High Court of Kerala

Mohammed Riyas P.A. v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan

Equivalent citations: 2026 KER 79184

When information forwarded by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 contains sufficient material disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory and can be dispensed with.…

LOK 2026 (10) Ker. 70 · High Court of Kerala

Anil Kumar R. v. State of Kerala

Equivalent citations: 2026 KER 77546

A Village Assistant was convicted by the Special Judge (Vigilance) for demanding ₹5,000 as bribe to accept a landholder's land tax and for accepting it in a vigilance trap. On appeal he contended that the money received was land tax and a welfare-fund contribution, relying…

LOK 2026 (10) SC 53 · Supreme Court of India

Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

Equivalent citations: 2026 INSC 1084

LOK 2026 (10) Ker. 1 · High Court of Kerala

C. Hariharan v. State of Kerala

Equivalent citations: 2026 KER 76724

Penal Code — Sections 409, 468, 471 and 477A — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) — Clerk challenged convictions arising from establishment pay-bill transactions at a Government Ayurveda hospital. He disputed entrustment and responsibility and relied on the role…

LOK 2026 (9) Ker. 283 · High Court of Kerala

K.N. Suresh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Equivalent citations: 2026 KER 75424

Appellant, a Customs Havildar, was convicted under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) for demanding and accepting 150 UAE Dirhams to release a non-dutiable used TV without issuing a receipt. Appellant challenged conviction inter alia on the ground that acquittal under Section 7 precludes conviction under Section…

LOK 2026 (9) SC 224 · Supreme Court of India

Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Equivalent citations: 2026 INSC 1031

Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to establish the guilt of an accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the absence of evidence demonstrating prior demand or voluntary acceptance of bribe…

LOK 2026 (9) Ker. 170 · High Court of Kerala

State of Kerala v. Junaid

Equivalent citations: 2026 KER 71638

The Special Court committed a grave error in accepting the baseless defence that the bribe amount was collected towards display charges when the evidence of the defence witness herself (DW1) affirmed that display charges were not applicable to vegetables. The prosecution proved demand and acceptance…

LOK 2026 (9) SC 84 · Supreme Court of India

Khanindra Kr. Dutta v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Equivalent citations: 2026 INSC 970

A conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, cannot be sustained in the absence of evidence proving that the accused obtained any pecuniary advantage or valuable thing. Since the High Court categorically found no evidence of pecuniary advantage, the conviction of…

LOK 2026 (8) SC 191 · Supreme Court of India

Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek v. State of Gujarat

Equivalent citations: 2026 INSC 890

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the initial demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. Since the demand was not proved, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act of 1988 could not…

LOK 2026 (1) Ker. 192 · High Court of Kerala

V.S. Suresh Kumar v. C.B.I. Cochin

Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant establishes guilt under PC Act when corroborated by trap evidence.