Back
K. SURENDER
K. Ranga Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant/AO was convicted for the offence under Section 7 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 and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act of 1988 vide judgment in CC No.37 of 2003 dated 23.07.2008 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the AO worked as Prohibition & Excise Inspector. P.W.1 was running a wine shop, which was owned by P.W.2. Accused officer visited the wine shop on 15.06.2002 and demanded to pay Rs.20,000/- as yearly mamool.
Again he visited the shop on 25.06.2002 and 04.07.2002. The accused officer further instructed that an amount of Rs.10,000/-has to be paid at his reside
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.
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.
Point of Law : Mere recovery from AO2 would not entail prosecution to seek drawl of presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act and shift burden on to appellant.
The judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of bribes can be proved through witness testimony and circumstantial evidence, and the defense of discharging official duties must be supported....
Point of law: Mere recovery of the said money from the accused officer will not entail the prosecution to claim presumption in their favour.
Both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are required for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of bribe without proven demand fails to establish culpability....
Point of law: Constitutional Bench judgment of Supreme Court held that once it is shown that amount received by any accused is towards illegal gratification, presumption has to be raised.
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
