Back
K. SURENDER
Maddu Veera Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by Public Prosecutor – 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 two years and also fine of Rs. 1000/- under both counts, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months vide judgment in C.C. No. 38 of 2005 dated 29.12.2009 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 a Constable in Chandhurthy Police Station, Karimnagar District. PW-1/Defacto complainant, his father/PW-2 and brother/PW-3 were having disputes with one Bhoomaiah, who is the uncle of PW-1. A complaint was lodged by P. Devaiah against PWs. 1 to 3 for intervening in the altercation that happened in between the said Devaiah and Bhoomaiah. On the basis of the said incident that happened on 10.12.2003, petty case was booked against PWs. 1 to 3. PWs. 1 to 3 were appearing before the Court. On 21.01.2004, when they appeared, it is alleged that the appellant demanded to pay Rs. 2,000/- to see to that nothing adverse would happen in the case,
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.
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.
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
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.
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.
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
