K. SURENDER
Gajawada Manikyam – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Criminal Appeal No.200 of 2008 is preferred by A2 who was the then Upper Divisional Clerk and Criminal Appeal No.202 of 2008 is preferred by A1, who was the then Junior Accounts Officer. Both were working in the office of Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operations & Constructions Division, Kamareddy. Both the appellants/A1 and A2 were 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 Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year under each count vide judgment in Calendar Case No.29 of 2004, dated 12.02.2008 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/L.W.1 (died prior to commencement of trial) approached the ACB authorities and lodged a complaint Ex.P10 alleging that he worked as Additional Assistant Engineer and was suspended on 27.09.1997 and was later reinstated. For regularization of period of his service and for processing his pension pa
B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh
C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P and another
Illegal gratification – Proof of demand is sine qua non for convicting a person under Section 7 of P.C. Act – Mere recovery of amount is of no consequence.
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
The necessity of proving a clear demand for a bribe is essential for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Mere recovery of money divorced from circumstances under which it is paid cannot lead to conclusion of guilt.
The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act) can only be drawn if the prosecution proves the foundational facts, such as demand and acceptance of bribe. In the abse....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.