Back
K. SURENDER
Bairam Muralidhar – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. SURENDER, J.
1. The appellant was convicted for demanding bribe of Rs. 5,000/- for doing official favour of facilitating PW-1 to go back to Dubai without implicating him in the kidnapping case. Further, the bribe was demanded to reduce the gravity of case against his son who was involved in Crime No. 21/2006 of Kamareddy Police Station for kidnapping.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 01.02.2006, a complaint was lodged against the son of the defacto complainant (PW-1) by one Radhakrishna Murthy alleging that his daughter was kidnapped. On the basis of the said complaint, the appellant who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the son of PW-1 on 07.02.2006. Nearly 2½ months thereafter on 22.04.2006, PW-1 returned to India and went to the Police Station. One of the Constable who was not examined in the Court asked for bribe of Rs. 6,000/- for not adding the name of PW-1 in the charge sheet to be filed against his son. Thereafter, the appellant demanded Rs. 5,000/- on 26.04.2006 and asked PW-1 to pay the said amount by 04.05.2006. Aggrieved by the said demand of bribe, PW-1 and PW-2 who is the cousin of PW-1, gave a complaint Ex.P1 on 01.05.2006 to the
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving the demand of illegal gratification as essential for establishing 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.
Proof of demand is essential for establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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 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 for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
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.
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 – Proof of demand is sine qua non for convicting a person under Section 7 of P.C. Act – Mere recovery of amount is of no consequence.
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
