Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SREENIVASA REDDY
R. Kesavalu (A1) – Appellant
Versus
State of AP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.)
Accused Officer No.1 (hereinafter referred to, as 'AO.1'), in Calendar Case No.16 of 2003 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore (for short 'the Special Judge'), filed this appeal challenging the Judgment dated 29.09.2007, whereunder and whereby he was convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the PC Act, 1988') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988. Both the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. It is further directed that MO3 i.e. cash of Rs.6,000/-, be returned
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.
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.
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 ....
The demand for illegal gratification is essential to prove charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Mere recovery of the tainted amount without proof of demand would no....
The requirement for proof of demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act was satisfied, confirming the conviction of the public servant involved.
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
