Back
K. SURENDER
M. Sudershan – Appellant
Versus
State ACB, Karimnagar Range, Hyderabad Rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of A. P. , Hyderabad. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant who was working as Assistant Engineer was entrapped by the ACB for the reason of accepting an amount of Rs.4,000/- from P.W.1/complainant for putting up file pertaining to the complainant with regard to return of his EMD of Rs.11,000/-. Learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad found the appellant guilty and convicted him for the offence under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act vide judgment in C.C.No.51 of 2003 dated 29.09.2007. Aggrieved by the said conviction, present appeal is filed.
2. The case of P.W.1 is that in the month of January, 2001, civil contract was granted for construction of community shelter at Ibrahimpatnam by the office of the Executive Engineer, Pachayat Raj and he completed the work within six months. Final bill was also given in respect of the said works. P.W.1 made initial deposit of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs.11,000/-, for which reason, an application under Ex.P11 was made for returning EMD.
3. On 14.02.2002, P.W.1 went to the office seeking return of EMD, when demand of Rs.5,000/- was made by the appellant. The demand was
The necessity of corroborative evidence in bribery cases and the principle of benefit of doubt in favor of the accused were established.
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of a bribe; mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction without evidence of demand.
The judgment establishes the principle that doubts regarding the possession and handling of incriminating evidence can lead to the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused.
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 prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; if the accused proves his defence by preponderance of probability, the charge may not stand.
The necessity of proving both demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases was emphasized.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving demand and acceptance of bribes.
Illegal gratification – Court must guard against cases of false implication.
The court affirmed that evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe, corroborated by positive test results, is sufficient for 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
