Back
K. SURENDER
M. Anwarullah – Appellant
Versus
State ACB, Nizamabad Range, Hyderabad Rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases High Court of A. P. , Hyderabad. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant is questioning his conviction recorded under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively and also to pay fine of Rs.300/- under each count vide judgment in C.C.No.36 of 2003 dated 24.07.2007 passed by Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as Line Inspector in the office of A.A.E, A.P. Transco, Bodhan, demanded an amount of Rs.300/- from the defacto complainant (not examined during trial since dead) for installation of new meter. Application was made by enclosing Form-A applications under Exs.P9 and P10 along with DDs Exs.P5 to P7. The defacto complainant allegedly met the appellant 10 to 12 times. However, the appellant insisted that Rs.300/- has to be paid failing which work cannot be done. The said demand was made on 19.08.2002 at 2.30 p.m. A complaint was preferred by the complainant to the ACB DSP the same day.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB secured the presence of two in
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused's explanation must be supported by evidence.
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.
Proof of demand is essential for establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and mere recovery of money is insufficient to establish guilt without corroborating evidence of these elements.
(1) Examination of witnesses – Once examination-in-chief is complete, question of ‘further chief-examination’ does not arise – Prosecution cannot adopt method of further chief-examination to fill in ....
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
