Back
K. SREENIVASA REDDY
P. Mohana Rangacharyulu (died) by LR, Smt. P. Lakshmi – Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. by the ACB, Vijayawada Range – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.12.2006 passed in CC No.13 of 2002 by the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada.
2. The accused officer was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). By his judgment dated 22.12.2006, the learned Special Judge found the accused officer guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. He was further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently and MO.3 (cash of Rs.2,000/-) was ordered to be returned to PW.9 and MOs.1, 2 and 4 to 7 were order
The prosecution must establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; evidence from witnesses with bad antecedents requires corroboration.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborative evidence to prove charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the significance of the accuse....
The prosecution must prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the defense must substantiate its theory by the standard of preponderance ....
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....
Point of law: The essential ingredients to be established to indict a person of an offence under Section 5(I)(d) of the Act are that he should have been a public servant, that he should have used cor....
Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which was duly established in this case.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for foundational facts to prove demand and acceptance of bribe, and the benefit of presumption under Sec. 20 of the P.C. 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
