Back
K. SURENDER
Borkut Mallaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. SURENDER, J.
1. The appellant who worked as Assistant Executive Engineer in Panchayat Raj Department, Asifabad, was trapped for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the defacto complainant/PW-1. Appellant was convicted by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Hyderabad, under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act vide judgment in C.C. No. 9 of 2005 dated 12.07.2010. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/PW-1 was Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency (MPTC) member, who was awarded three contracts for laying metal roads. Having entered into agreement with department, work orders were issued and accordingly he completed works within time. The roads were laid under the food for work programme. The wages would include distribution of rice which would be released by issuing rice coupons by the appellant within his jurisdiction.
3. It is further the case of PW-1 that the appellant had to release total extent of 80 quintals of rice and when asked to release rice, appellant demanded Rs.14,000/- as bribe and later reduced the bribe amount to R
The prosecution must prove all the circumstances and events linking one another by producing evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove both the demand for a bribe and the existence of an official favor pending; mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient for conviction.
The necessity of proving a clear demand for a bribe is essential for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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.
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of a bribe; mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction without evidence of demand.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; if the accused proves his defence by preponderance of probability, the charge may not stand.
The court established that the burden of proof in bribery cases lies with the accused to provide a credible explanation for the acceptance of money, which was not met in this case.
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when demand of illegal gratification was not proved, the offence under Section 7 of the Act is not established.
The prosecution must prove the existence of a pending application for work to establish a bribery charge; failure to do so results in acquittal.
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
