Back
K. SURENDER
Shyamala Pramod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. SURENDER, J.
1. The appellant is questioning his conviction vide judgment in C.C. No. 21 of 2005 dated 13.04.2010 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, and being sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘the Act’) and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as Assistant Labour Officer, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. The case of PW-1/defacto complainant is that he and other medical agencies in the area did not have labour licences for engaging workers. Accordingly, on 19.06.2003, PW-1 met the appellant and enquired about the licences. Since there was no response, PW-1 again met him on 20.06.2003. When PW-1 enquired about the licences, appellant demanded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as bribe for issuing licences. The applications were not received by the appellant from PW-1 and others. Again on 21.06.2003, PW-1 met the appellant and also met one person by name Sathish Kumar. On 24.06.2003
The prosecution must prove all the circumstances and events linking one another by producing evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
The necessity of proving demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act was affirmed, with emphasis on the burden of proof resting on the accused.
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.
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when demand of illegal gratification was not proved, the offence under Section 7 of the Act is not established.
The prosecution must prove the demand for a bribe and the existence of pending official work to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand is essential for establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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.
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.
A public servant's demand for a bribe must be substantiated by evidence that they had the authority to grant the favor sought by the complainant.
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
