Back
K. SURENDER
T. Rajeshwar – Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. by 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”) and sentenced to undergo one year under each count vide judgment in Calendar Case No.40 of 2002, dated 27.04.2007 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.1,000/- from the defactocomplainant/P.W.1. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the defacto complainant who is Proprietor of Bharat Radiators. He applied for APGST registration vide Ex.P1 in the office of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (ACTO) on 12.10.2000. On 16.10.2000, P.W.1 received notice from the ACTO asking him to file Rs.2,000/- National Saving Certificate, property particulars etc. and after receiving the said notice, P.W.1 submitted proper documents under ExP3 to the appellant.
3. On 27.11.2000, PW.1 went to the office and met the appellant and enquired about the registration certificate, for which, the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.2,000/- to
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.
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 : 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 court upheld that demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act are distinct offences, allowing for separate convictions based on the same facts.
The necessity of proving demand for a bribe beyond reasonable doubt is crucial for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Point of Law : Presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be drawn as there is no prima facie case found that the appellant-accused has accepted or obtained the gratifica....
Demand and acceptance of bribe are essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted amount in the abse....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborative evidence to prove charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the significance of the accuse....
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
