Back
K. SURENDER
E. Rama Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. , Rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB, Hyderabad Range – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Surender, J.
1. The appellant aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the I Additional 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 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.28 of 2008 dated 31.05.2013, the present appeal is filed.
2. P.W.1 defacto complainant approached the ACB and filed Ex.P1 complaint, alleging that he was a contractor in the Water Works Department. He did leakage maintenance and chowkage of walls in Jeedimetla Section, which works were within the control of the appellant. As and when works were entrusted by the appellant, the works used to be taken up and completed. After execution of the work, the appellant used to give permission letter and send the same to D.G.M and G.M. After that it would be sanctioned by the General Manager. After obtaining such sanction from the GM, estimate of the work would be prepared and details would be entered in the measurements book. Total eight works were entrusted by the appellant in the year
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.
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.
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 for bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictory evidence from the main witness can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of a bribe; mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction without evidence of demand.
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 money is not sufficient.
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
