Back
K. SURENDER
D. Ravindra Babu – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant/Accused Officer(AO) was convicted for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default to pay fine amount, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the charge under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and also to pay fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months vide judgment in C.C.No.6 of 2004 dated 14.08.2008, passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the proprietor of M/s.United Seeds, Hyderguda and obtained licence for running his shop from the agriculture office. The said license is renewable every three years. Since the license expired on 23.11.2002, P.W.1 approached the office of the accused officer and filed challan. However, he did not get the renewal license for which reason, he approached the office of the Assistant Director and
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.
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.
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 : Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme Court held that once it is shown that the amount received by any accused is towards illegal gratification, presumption has to be raised.
The necessity of proving demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act was affirmed, with emphasis on the burden of proof resting on the accused.
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
