Back
K. SURENDER
P. Parthasaradhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, Rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor, ACB – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Surender, J.
1. The appellant/A1 is aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad for the under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act of 1988 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under both counts, vide judgment in CC No.49 of 2004 dated 20.12.2007, the present appeal is filed. A2 was also tried along with the appellant/A1 and convicted. However, due to his death, the appeal filed by A2 was dismissed as abated.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as Mandal Revenue Officer, Penubally Mandal, Khammam District. The father of P.W.1/defacto complainant died in the year 1999. P.W.1 was going around the office for three years to mutate his name in the revenue records in the place of his father. The application was also filed. However, he approached A1 on 07.08.2002 requesting him to process his application for mutating his name in the revenue records. The appellant demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- to mutate his name in the revenue records. On the next d
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
Illegal gratification – Proof of demand is sine qua non for convicting a person under Section 7 of P.C. Act – Mere recovery of amount is of no consequence.
The necessity of proving both the demand for a bribe and the execution of works is essential for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The prosecution must prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictory evidence from the main witness can lead to acquittal.
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.
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of a bribe is insufficient.
Illegal gratification – Prosecution would succeed only when factum of demand is proved – Recovery aspect cannot be considered to infer that bribe was demanded.
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
