K. SURENDER
Kandukuri Ananda Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB, Karimnagar Range – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Surender, J.
1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting an amount of Rs.1,000/- from P.W.1/defacto complainant, vide judgment in C.C.No.91 of 2010 dated 16.12.2011 passed by the II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.
2. According to the prosecution case, the amount of Rs.1,000/- was demanded for processing the application of P.W.1 for the purpose of licence to run a fertilizer shop. According to P.W.1, he was having a valid licence to run the shop till 2006. Later, when he approached the appellant for renewal of the licence, the appellant demanded Rs.5,000/-. Though, challans were paid for running the shop, the licence was not renewed. On 20.09.2006, the appellant went to the shop and locked the shop on the ground that he was not holding a valid licence, though P.W.1 showed challans that were paid by him.
3. The appellant allegedly demanded Rs.3,000/- bribe for handing back the keys. Two days thereafter, P.W.1 went to the office of the appellant and requested the appellant to return the keys of his shop and promised to pay the bribe amount.
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 all the circumstances and events linking one another by producing evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
The mere recovery of a bribe amount does not suffice for conviction; the prosecution must prove the demand for the bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
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.
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of a bribe is insufficient.
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 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.
In bribery cases, both demand and acceptance of the bribe must be established for conviction; mere recovery of bribe without proof of demand is insufficient.
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 – Court must guard against cases of false implication.
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.