Back
K. SURENDER
G. Veeraiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. SURENDER, J.
1. Since both the appeals are arising out of C.C. No. 40 of 2003, wherein A1 filed Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2008 and A2 filed Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 2008, they are being heard together and disposed off by way of this Common Judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, the appellants will be referred to as Accused Officers 1 and 2. Accused No. 1 (AO1) was the then Circle Inspector of Police and Accused No. 2 (AO2), was the then Sub-Inspector of Police working in the Dubbak Police Station. According to ACB, PW-1/de-facto complainant approached ACB and lodged complaint Ex.P15 on 04-02-2008, stating that his minor daughter was kidnapped. Accordingly, he gave application before Dubbak Police Station. AO-2 did not take any action even though Rs. 1000/- was paid and there was no progress in the investigation. PW-1 went around the police station several times, however, no attempts were made by the Accused Officers to trace out the daughter of PW-1. PW-1 also approached the Officer on Special Duty and narrated his grievance. She asked PW-1 to meet AO1. However, AO-1 demanded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for the purpose of money to be spent on searching his daughter.
Mere recovery of money divorced from circumstances under which it is paid cannot lead to conclusion of guilt.
Point of law: Proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore....
Point of Law : The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficie....
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 prosecution must prove the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification, and the accused must rebut the presumption raised under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and can be utilised only to corroborate or contradict the witness vis-a-vis statement made in court. In other words, it can be utilised on....
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient without establishing these elements.
The necessity of proving a clear demand for a bribe is essential for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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
