K. SURENDER
R. Ravikanth – Appellant
Versus
State ACB City Range, Hyderabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. SURENDER, J.
1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively vide judgment in C.C. No. 38 of 2004 dated 22.12.2008 passed by the 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 Junior Assistant in the office of the Deputy Educational Officer, Ameerpet Mandal, Hyderabad. PW-1/defacto complainant was the office in-charge of Gyana Saraswathi School. The TC book of the school was exhausted and since new TC book would be supplied by the DEO, Hyderabad, on the instructions of the Head Mistress of the School, the defacto complainant visited the office of the Deputy DEO, on 03.07.2003 and met the appellant. The application for giving TC certificates Ex.P1 and letter for allotment of text books dated 30.06.2003 along with pay orders Exs.P3 and P4 were handed over to the appellant. The appellant refused to put up file before the Deputy DEO for issuance of TC book and text books and demanded Rs. 1,000/- as b
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving demand and acceptance of bribes.
The judgment establishes the principle that doubts regarding the possession and handling of incriminating evidence can lead to the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused.
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 all the circumstances and events linking one another by producing evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
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 necessity of proving a clear demand for a bribe is essential for a conviction 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.
In bribery cases, both demand and acceptance of the bribe must be established for conviction; mere recovery of bribe without proof of demand is insufficient.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe, but once gratification is found to have been accepted, a legal presumption can be drawn that the amount was accepted as illegal grat....
The necessity of proving both demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases was emphasized.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.