Back
K. SURENDER
E. Rama Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
The appellant aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the I 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.28 of 2008 dated 31.05.2013, the present appeal is filed.
2. P.W.1 defacto complainant approached the ACB and filed Ex.P1 complaint, alleging that he was a contractor in the Water Works Department. He did leakage maintenance and chowkage of walls in Jeedimetla Section, which works were within the control of the appellant. As and when works were entrusted by the appellant, the works used to be taken up and completed. After execution of the work, the appellant used to give permission letter and send the same to D.G.M and G.M. After that it would be sanctioned by the General Manager. After obtaining such sanction from the GM, estimate of the work would be prepared and details would be entered in the measurements book. Total eight works were entrusted by the appellant in the year 2006 and completed
Illegal gratification – Prosecution would succeed only when factum of demand is proved – Recovery aspect cannot be considered to infer that bribe was demanded.
The necessity of proving both the demand for a bribe and the execution of works is essential for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of a bribe; mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction without evidence of demand.
The prosecution must prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictory evidence from the main witness can lead to acquittal.
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.
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.
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 mere recovery of a bribe amount does not suffice for conviction; the prosecution must prove the demand for the bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
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
