Back
K. SURENDER
Mohd. Fakruddin – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. SURENDER, J.
1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1988’) vide judgment in C.C. No. 37 of 2001 dated 29.01.2008 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE&ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW-6 had taken a stall in the All India Industrial Exhibition for running ‘Egg Stall’ in the name and style of ‘Sai Krishna Egg Point’ for selling egg based products by paying the bid amount. However, from the beginning, the appellant, who was Sub-Inspector posted in the Out Post of Industrial Exhibition, used to visit the stall and harass PW-6 for paying bribe (mamool). Prior to 01.02.1999, the accused officer demanded an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards the said mamool and again the accused officer went to the shop on 01.02.1999 and threatened PW-6 that he would complain to the vigilance department and to see to that his shop is closed, if he fails to give the bribe amount. The bribe amount was reduced to Rs. 1,000/- and the accused officer as
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 : 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.
The prosecution must prove all the circumstances and events linking one another by producing evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
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.
Proof of demand is essential for establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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.
Proof of demand is essential for establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery without proof of demand cannot lead to conviction.
Point of law: Mere recovery of the said money from the accused officer will not entail the prosecution to claim presumption in their favour.
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when demand of illegal gratification was not proved, the offence under Section 7 of the Act is not established.
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
