Back
K. SURENDER
M. Srikanth Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. Rep. by Inspector of Police ACB – Respondent
JUDGMENT
The appellant aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under both counts, vide judgment in CC No.24 of 2019 dated 15.03.2013, the present appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant/A1 and A2 (since A2 died during the pendency of appeal, the case against A2 was dismissed as abated) were working as Civil Assistant Surgeons in the District Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad. P.Ws.2 and 3 went to Government Hospital, Nizamabad for operation of tonsillitis of P.W.2. It is alleged that A1 and A2 demanded Rs.2,000/- for performing operation in the hospital and if the operation has to be performed outside the Government Hospital, they have to give Rs.4,000/-. Since P.Ws.2 and 3 did not have the amount, they returned home. On 06.09.2003, P.W.1/defacto complainant accompanied P.Ws.2 and 3 and met A2. Then, the A1 was also present at that time. There was a demand
Illegal gratification – Proof of demand is sine qua non for convicting a person under Section 7 of P.C. Act – Mere recovery of amount is of no consequence.
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
The prosecution must prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictory evidence from the main witness can lead to acquittal.
Proof of demand is essential for establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery without proof of demand cannot lead to conviction.
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 mere recovery of money does not establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act without proof of demand for bribes.
Mere recovery of amount from accused officer will not suffice to draw a presumption under Section 20 of Act of 1988 to shift burden on to accused officer.
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
