Back
K. SURENDER
Gulam Mohammed – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and also under Section 13 (1) (d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) vide judgment in Calendar Case No.3 of 2003, dated 13.08.2007 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer SI for six months, under each count. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the ACB is that the defacto complainant/P.W.1 had land to the extent of Acs.3.15 guntas in Sy.No.473 at Pillamarri village, Suryapet Mandal, Nalgonda District. Since no boundary stones were fixed around the land, the husband of P.W.1 submitted an application in the MRO office at Suryapet by paying the requisite fee for demarcation of her land. The accused officer went to the said land 3 months prior to the complaint but did not conduct any survey. On 03.07.2000, when requested to conduct survey, the accused officer demanded bribe of Rs.25,000/-failing which he refused to survey and demarcate her land. In spite of several requests accu
Point of law: Mere recovery of the said money from the accused officer will not entail the prosecution to claim presumption in their favour.
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.
The prosecution must prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictory evidence from the main witness can lead to acquittal.
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 necessity of proving both the demand for a bribe and the complainant's legal standing in property disputes under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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.
Illegal gratification – Prosecution would succeed only when factum of demand is proved – Recovery aspect cannot be considered to infer that bribe was demanded.
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
