Back
K. SURENDER
K. Shankar – Appellant
Versus
State ACB rep by Inspector of Police Anti Corruption Bureau – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the conviction under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- under each count vide judgment in C.C.No.23 of 2021 dated 13.04.2007 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, present appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 23.05.1999, P.Ws.5 and 6, who are the officials of A.P. Transco visited the house of P.W.1 and inspected the service connection bearing No.1129 and it was found that P.W.1 was extracting energy by-passing the meter by providing a loop wire from the incoming phase of the meter to cut out-going to the terminal. Since it was a case of pilferage of energy, an inspection note was prepared and handed over to the appellant for proceeding further by the competent authority. P.W.1 enquired about the said proceedings and he was asked to meet the appellant. P.W.1 met the appellant on 14.06.1999 and enquired about the case. The appellant allegedly informed that he has to pay an amount of Rs.18,000/- towards fine. P.W.1 pleaded with the appellant and the ap
Illegal gratification – Prosecution would succeed only when factum of demand is proved – Recovery aspect cannot be considered to infer that bribe was demanded.
The necessity of proving both the demand for a bribe and the execution of works is essential for a conviction 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.
The prosecution must prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictory evidence from the main witness can lead to acquittal.
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 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 : 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.
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
