K. SURENDER
Soma Raghavender – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. , Rep. by DSP, ACB, Warangal Range – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Surender, J.
1. The appellant aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad for the offences 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.14 of 2005 dated 29.12.2009, the present appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the defacto complainant/P.W.1 is that he was sub-contractor of P.W.4, who secured the contract for laying road from Ramagudem to Pandavarigudem with the R & B Department. The agreement in between P.W.4 and R & B is Ex.P9. The said work had to be completed within 2 months from the date of agreement. P.W.4 was unable to execute the work and handed it over to P.W.1. Accordingly, P.W.1 completed work within stipulated time having invested money for completion of the work. The appellant was the concerned Assistant Engineer who recoded measurements in the M Book. P.W.1 was given an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs and also 34 tons of rice towards part payment of the contract. According to P.W.1,
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.
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 prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of a bribe; mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction without evidence of demand.
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.
Illegal gratification – Prosecution would succeed only when factum of demand is proved – Recovery aspect cannot be considered to infer that bribe was demanded.
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 demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictory evidence from the main witness can lead to acquittal.
The necessity of proving both demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases was emphasized.
Illegal gratification – Court must guard against cases of false implication.
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.