K. SURENDER
Nagabandi Baby Nageswaramma – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – 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. 54 of 2004 dated 31.03.2008 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. Briefly, the case of defacto complainant is that her property situated at Kamaypally village was given on rent to B.C Welfare Office, Khammam for running hostel in it. The rent was fixed at Rs. 1,073/- per month. Later, on an application made, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,575/- per month. The rent was being paid through Demand Draft. For the months of May, June and July, 2003, the rent was due. PW-1 met the appellant and asked to pay three months rent. Then the appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 500/- on 10.11.2003 for handing over the Demand Draft that was issued on 08.10.2003. The demand was repeated on 11.10.2003, 14.10.2003 and 20.10.2003. On the said three days, the husband of PW-1 met the appellant.
3. On 23.10.2003, PW-1 and her husband went to the ACB office and gave Ex.P1 written complaint
The burden of proof of proving the demand of illegal gratification lies with the prosecution, and if the demand is not proved, the prosecution case fails.
The prosecution must prove all the circumstances and events linking one another by producing evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
The court established that the demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a serious offense, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to disprove the allegations.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused's explanation must be supported by evidence.
Illegal gratification – Court must guard against cases of false implication.
The necessity of proving both demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases was emphasized.
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 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.
The prosecution must prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictory evidence from the main witness can lead to acquittal.
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.
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.