Back
K. SURENDER
Nimishakavi Kotilingam – 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 CC No. 36 of 2004 dated 28.03.2008 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present Appeal is filed.
2. The case against the appellant is that while he was working as Senior Assistant in the office of Khammam Municipality, Khammam District, demanded an amount of Rs. 2,000/- for the purpose of mutating the name of Banoth Veerabhadra Rao, (defacto complainant, not examined during trial due to his death) in respect of his half share property by virtue of partition decree passed by the Lok Adalat. Pursuant to the said demand, an amount of Rs. 700/- was accepted as part payment on 05.02.2003 on which date, the appellant was trapped.
3. The complaint was filed on 03.02.2003. The said complaint was given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the complainant was instructed to get back on 05.02.2003, on which date, trap was arranged. Meanwhile, antecedents o
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused's explanation must be supported by evidence.
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 all the circumstances and events linking one another by producing evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
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 absence of corroboration and completion of official duties by the accused led to the acquittal, emphasizing the need for clear evidence in bribery cases.
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
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.
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.
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
