Back
K. SURENDER
D. Suresh Raj – Appellant
Versus
State ACB, City Range-I, Hyderabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant/A1 was convicted for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under both counts vide judgment in C.C.No.34 of 2003 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad dated 25.10.2007. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. P.W.1 is the complainant. He approached the ACB and filed complaint Ex.P1 that the appellant who was the Traffic Inspector went to the shops of P.W.1, PW2, PW3 and others and asked to meet them in the police station. Since they failed to meet him in the police station, the appellant went to the shop and picked up 10 pairs of shoes from each of their shops on 16.10.2001. When P.W.1 and others had asked the appellant to return the shoes, the appellant demanded Rs.500/- as monthly mamool, failing which, he would see to that the shops are removed. On 19.10.2001, P.W.1 and others approached the appellant having collected Rs.3,000/- amongst themselves. However, the appellant did not agree for Rs.3,000/- and demanded Rs.6,000/- to be paid for two m
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....
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 : 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.
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.
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.
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.
Illegal gratification – Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained when there are glaring inconsistencies insofar as amount of money demanded.
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
