Back
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Mohammed Mahaboob Ali (died) As Per Lrs – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. Rep By Pp – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[Hereinafter, Cr.P.C.] (for short “the Code”) aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.07.2008 passed in C.C.No.9 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada[Hereinafter, trial court] for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.[Hereinafter “P.C.Act”]
2. Appellant was convicted under Section 248(2) of the Cr.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer simple for three months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. Appellant herein is the Accused Officer, respondent herein is the Complainant
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
The prosecution must prove the demand for illegal gratification to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient.
Illegal gratification – Allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond reasonable doubt – Mere possession or recovery of currency notes is ....
Point of law: Demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is a condition precedent for constituting an offence under the Act, it is to be noted that there is a statutory presumption ....
Requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act is critical for conviction; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
