Back
HARINATH N.
T. Prabhakara Rao – Appellant
Versus
Secretary To Government – Respondent
ORDER :
(Harinath N., J.) :
The petitioner challenges the G.O.Ms.No.21 Home (SC.B) Law and Justice, Department, dated 28.01.2013 and Memo No.190/SC.B/A2/2006-4, dated 05.03.2012 as illegal, arbitrary and un-constitutional.
2. The petitioner while working as Junior Assistant/Bench Clerk of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada was involved in a Trap Case conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada (herein after be referred as ‘ACB’) on 04.02.2006. It is stated that, one Shaik Mahaboob Shareef, the defacto-complainant therein was involved in a criminal case CC.No.1396 of 2002 and that the same ended in acquittal on 06.12.2005. It is also stated that the defacto-complainant met the bench clerk by name Subba Rao on 07.01.2006 and requested for issuance of the copy of the Judgment. It is the case of the defacto-complainant that the said Subba Rao demanded an amount of Rs.200/-for issuance of the certified copy of the Judgment. The ACB, Vijayawada conducted the trap operation on 04.02.2006 and the ACB recovered the tainted amount from the said writ petitioner.
3. Crime No.07 of 2006 was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, however,
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
Point of Law : Hon’ble Supreme Court held that though there was any irregularity in a proceeding, such irregularity should have been resulted in causing prejudice to accused.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.
Both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are required for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of bribe without proven demand fails to establish culpability....
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery without evidence of bribe demand is insufficient.
Point of Law : When amount was recovered from the table drawer and once demand is not proved, which is sine qua non proof, an offence under Section 7 of the Act is not proved, the prosecution fails.
The prosecution must prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of money without evidence of demand is insufficient.
The court established that mere acceptance of a bribe without direct demand or capacity to influence does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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
