SC questioned the type of punishment imposed under the Corruption Prevention Act

While the Apex Court tried an SLP against the Karnataka High Court’s decision, it believed that corruption issues should not be treated leniently and that punishment of convicted officials should not necessarily be limited to simple detention, as is done to prevent Corruption Is the Case The 1988 Act also does not contain a description of imprisonment.

The immediate SLP was filed against the order of Karnataka HC, in which the HC upheld the petitioner’s conviction issued by the Special Court pursuant to Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Corruption Prevention Act.

The petitioner had worked in the Gram Panchayat secretary in Kavalaga village. The applicant’s wife had only been selected under the Ashraya program in 2006-2007 and received a certain sum of money to build a house.

The said amount was paid in four installments and at the time of the third installment the petitioner requested Rs. 500 from the complainant to give the check. The complainant had refused to give the bribe and had lodged a complaint against the petitioner / accused.

The petitioner was accused of accepting a satisfaction other than the statutory remuneration he had received for his official act. The special court reduced the sentence given to him in view of his age.

However, the Apex Court rejected the SLP and upheld the order from Karnataka HC. The bank also noted why the High Court only granted a simple detention of officials’ affairs related to corruption. The bank believed that given the alleged involvement of the officials in corruption, such matters must be handled strictly.

Pursuant to Section 7 of the Act, the legislature has only indicated the amount of the sentence to be given to the convicted person, but has not limited the interpretation to simple detention. The bank said it would consider imposing a sentence in the future, other than simple detention.

Comments are closed.