Back
K. SURENDER
G. Vijay Sai – Appellant
Versus
State ACB, Hyderabad Range – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(K. Surender, J.) :
1. The appellant is questioning his conviction in the present appeal, recorded by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under both counts, vide judgment in CC No.17 of 2005 dated 19.11.2009.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1, who is the defacto complainant lodged a complaint with ACB stating that he is the owner and possessor of agricultural lands and he had a borewell in his land. The borewell fetches sufficient watering, as such, some of the villagers including Sarpanch approached him and requested him to provide drinking water from his borewell to the village and promised to pay money for supply of the water. P.W.1 was being paid Rs.1,500/- per month by the RDO for supplying drinking water to Redlarepaka village. According to procedure, recommendation would be made by the Assistant Engineer, who was working in the Rural Water Supply Office, Veligonda to the M.R.O. M.R.O, in turn rec
The prosecution must prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictory evidence from the main witness can lead to acquittal.
The necessity of proving both the demand for a bribe and the execution of works is essential for a conviction 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.
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.
(1) Examination of witnesses – Once examination-in-chief is complete, question of ‘further chief-examination’ does not arise – Prosecution cannot adopt method of further chief-examination to fill in ....
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
Point of law: Mere recovery of the said money from the accused officer will not entail the prosecution to claim presumption in their favour.
Illegal gratification – Prosecution would succeed only when factum of demand is proved – Recovery aspect cannot be considered to infer that bribe was demanded.
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of a bribe is insufficient.
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
