IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J
S. Vijaya Bharath – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Spl.PP for ACB – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.)
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment, dated 20.12.2007, passed in CC No.20 of 2003 by the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. The sole accused officer is the appellant herein. He 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 20.12.2007, the learned Additional Special Judge found the accused officer guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and, accordingly, convicted him of the said offences, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. The accused officer was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one and half year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read
The prosecution must prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
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 for illegal gratification is essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
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: 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....
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.
Demand and acceptance of bribe are essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted amount in the abse....
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....
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....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.