Back
K. SURENDER
Basireddy Ravinder Reddy (died) – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. , rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB, CIU, Hyderabad, Rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
K. Surender, J.
1. The appellant was convicted for the offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevetion of Corruption Act, 1988, on the allegation of accepting bribe of Rs.1,000/-.
2. The appellant died during the course of pendency of the appeal and accordingly permission was sought by the legal heirs who are the wife and daughter to prosecute the appeal. Permission was granted.
3. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant/PW1 was a motor mechanic. One A.Praveen used to give him a two wheeler for repair. However, the Inspector (not prosecuted) along with the appellant who was Constable went to PW.1’s mechanic shop of 19.04.2008 and informed that the two wheeler which was given by Praveen was stolen vehicle. An amount of Rs.1,500/- was taken from PW1 and the Inspector also threatened him saying that PW1 knew about the commission of theft of the vehicle. PW1 pleaded with the Inspector and the appellant saying that he does not know anything about the factum of theft of two wheeler by Praveen. The telephone numbers of the Inspector and the appellant were given to PW1 and asked him to appear in Police Station on 22.04.2008.
4. PW1 along with PW4 who
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 upheld that demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act are distinct offences, allowing for separate convictions based on the same facts.
The court confirmed that the prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribes for corruption convictions, affirming that minor discrepancies in witness accounts do not undermine overall testimo....
The prosecution must prove all the circumstances and events linking one another by producing evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Point of law: Proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore....
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.
Point of Law : Mere recovery from AO2 would not entail prosecution to seek drawl of presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act and shift burden on to appellant.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
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
