Back
K. SURENDER
Nemuri Narasingha Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P, rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB, Hyderabad Range – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.Surender, J.
1. Since the appellant died, the wife of the appellant filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 under Section 394(2) of Cr.P.C to permit her to prosecute the appeal. Permission granted and appeal is heard.
2. The deceased/accused/public servant was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively, vide judgment in C.C.No.9 of 2007 dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
3. Briefly, the case of the defacto complainant/P.W.1 is that he is an Advocate by profession. Defence Housing Co-operative Society at Sainikpuri used to allot plots to its members. Only serving or Ex-service personnel of defence forces are eligible for allotment of plots in the said society. On enquiry, P.W.1 came to know that Ex-President and Ex-Secretary of the society allotted plots to ineligible persons and grabbed land meant for public use. To question the said illegalities, he wanted to approach the concerned Courts, fo
The necessity of proving demand for a bribe beyond reasonable doubt is crucial for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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....
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.
The judgment reaffirms that errors in charge framing do not vitiate a trial unless they cause prejudice, and emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence and the implausibility of defenses in ....
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.
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 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.
The necessity of corroborative evidence in bribery cases and the principle of benefit of doubt in favor of the accused were established.
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
