Back
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Nallagatla Krishna Prasad Died (Per L R), S/o. Sheshavatharam – Appellant
Versus
State of A P rep by Range Inspector III Anti Corruption Bureau by Spl PP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.
Aggrieved by the impugned judgment for conviction and sentence passed against the sole accused in C.C.No.17 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, for the offences under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988[In short, PC Act] under Section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973[In short, Code], wherein he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and directed to run both the sentences concurrently, the Accused preferred the present Appeal.
2. The appellant and the respondent herein were the accused and the State represented by the Range Inspector-III, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Vijayawada, respectively before the
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish offences 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.
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 ....
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
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.
Statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and can be utilised only to corroborate or contradict the witness vis-a-vis statement made in court. In other words, it can be utilised on....
Mere recovery of tainted notes without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance insufficient for conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) PC Act; demand is sine qua non, presumption under Section 20 ina....
Point of law: Proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore....
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
