Back
K. SURENDER
T. V. Rama Sarma – Appellant
Versus
State through Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rep. by the Special Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Accused Officer No.1 aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Principal Special Judge (SPE & ACB) cases at Hyderabad, dated 15.05.2007 in C.C.No.3 of 2003, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months for the charge under Section 7 of the Act and a fine of Rs.1,000/-; and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year for the charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment, should run concurrently.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/A.O.1 and learned Standing Counsel for ACB.
3. The appellant/Accused Officer was convicted for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.1,500/- from PW1 as ‘mamool’.
4. According to ACB, the appellant was a ration checking Inspector. One Bhoomalingam who was the owner of Fair Price Shop No.833 died in the month of November-2000. Half of the ration cards attached to the said fair price shop of Bhoomalingam was allotted to the fair price shop of PW1. It is alleged that on the ground of
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.
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 judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of bribes can be proved through witness testimony and circumstantial evidence, and the defense of discharging official duties must be supported....
The court established that mere acceptance of a bribe without direct demand or capacity to influence does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Point of law: Supreme Court held that once it is shown that amount received by any accused is towards illegal gratification, presumption has to be raised.
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.
Point of law: The essential ingredients to be established to indict a person of an offence under Section 5(I)(d) of the Act are that he should have been a public servant, that he should have used cor....
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
