Back
K. SURENDER
Chandragiri Yellaiah – Appellant
Versus
State ACB, Hyderabad Range, Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Surender, J.
1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 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 one year under both counts vide judgment in C.C.No.26 of 2007 dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Learned Special Judge found him guilty for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.4,000/-.
2. Briefly, the case of P.W.1 is that he inherited Acs.3.10 guntas of land at Adibatla village after the properties were shared amongst four brothers. Since partition was done, for the purpose of fixing boundaries to his property, P.W.1, who is the complainant approached the MRO office on 30.08.2006 and submitted an application Ex.P2 along with challan Ex.P3. MRO/P.W.5 endorsed on the said application Ex.P3 as “Surveyor, pl get it surveyed urgently”. The appellant did not give any receipt on that day but asked PW1 to take photocopy of the application which is with the endorsement of the MRO. Appellant demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- for the purpose of giving notice to other pattadars and to do survey. Again P.W.1 met the a
The prosecution must prove the demand for a bribe with convincing evidence, and mere recovery of the amount is not sufficient for conviction.
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of a bribe is insufficient.
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.
Prosecution must establish demand for a bribe before recovery of money can be deemed evidence of guilt; without proof of demand or authority to act, conviction for corruption cannot stand.
Point of law: Mere recovery of the said money from the accused officer will not entail the prosecution to claim presumption in their favour.
The necessity of corroborative evidence in bribery cases and the principle of benefit of doubt in favor of the accused were established.
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.
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.
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
