Back
K. SURENDER
Kotla Narsimlu – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. , Rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB, Hyderabad 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 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under both counts, vide judgment in C.C.No.8 of 2007 dated 18.06.2010 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the P.W.1/Defacto complainant is that he purchased land of Ac.1.24 guntas in Shaipur village under an agreement of sale. In order to fix the boundaries, he went to the land, but the neighbors objected. For the said reason, GPA was obtained from the vendor/P.W.2 and having filed civil suit, obtained injunction orders. On 19.01.2005, application was filed before the MRO for making correction of the survey number in the revenue records. Since the land, which was sought to be purchased was shown as Sy.No.22/E2 instead of 22/AA. Again an application was filed with the RDO on 18.03.2005, who endorsed it to the MRO.
3. A1/appellant herein was working as the Senior Assistant in the office of MRO. A2 (acquitted) was working as Deputy MRO. The appe
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 a bribe with convincing evidence, and mere recovery of the amount is not sufficient for conviction.
The necessity of corroborative evidence in bribery cases and the principle of benefit of doubt in favor of the accused were established.
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.
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.
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe, but once gratification is found to have been accepted, a legal presumption can be drawn that the amount was accepted as illegal grat....
The court emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence, finding the prosecution's case doubtful due to reliance on an interested witness and prior delivery of documents, leading to the acquitta....
The prosecution must prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictory evidence from the main witness can lead to 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
