Back
K. SURENDER
N. Tirumala Chary – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. , Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor – 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 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively, vide judgment in C.C.No.24 of 2004 dated 17.09.2008 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the defacto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1 is that his father-in-law gifted Acs.3.00 of land in Sy.No.24 of Edulapuram village to his wife by registered gift deed and the same was being cultivated by P.W.1. The service connection to the land bearing No.31 standing in the name of Laxminarayana, who is late father-in-law was disconnected on the ground that there was Rs.2,550/- arrears that had to be paid. P.W.1 then went to the office of Additional Assistant Engineer, ERO, Khammam and paid Rs.1,800/- under Ex.P2 on 23.04.2003. On the next day i.e., on 24.04.2003, Rs.750/- was paid and another Rs.50/- was paid towards reconnection charges.
3. On 24.04.2003, P.W.1 met the appellant, who was working as Additional Assistant Enginee
The necessity of corroborative evidence in bribery cases and the principle of benefit of doubt in favor of the accused were established.
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of a bribe is insufficient.
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 demand for a bribe beyond reasonable doubt is crucial for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court affirmed that evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe, corroborated by positive test results, is sufficient for 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.
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.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; if the accused proves his defence by preponderance of probability, the charge may not stand.
Point of Law : When amount was recovered from the table drawer and once demand is not proved, which is sine qua non proof, an offence under Section 7 of the Act is not proved, the prosecution fails.
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
