Back
K. SURENDER
Addely Madhusudan – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. , Thru ACB – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(K. Surender, J.) :
The appellant is questioning the conviction 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”) on the allegation of demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.1000/- from the defacto complainant for issuing Pattedar Pass Books. Aggrieved by the said conviction, present appeal is preferred.
2. The defacto complainant is P.W.1. According to him, the ancestral property was partitioned amongst his uncles and their sons. Since P.W.1 was having a right over the lands, he approached office of the MRO during April, 2003 and gave Ex.P1 application for issuance of pattedar passbook in his name. Ex.P1 is the said application dated 02.04.2003. Both the MRO and the Superintendent of the office of the MRO asked P.W.1 to meet the appellant. For five months, P.W.1 went around the appellant to get the pass book. On 05.09.2003, when P.W.1 enquired about his work, the appellant allegedly demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- to process his application and issue passbooks. P.W.1 pleaded that he was not in a position to pay Rs.5,000/- and as such, the appellant informed that Rs.1,000/- has to be paid
The absence of corroboration and completion of official duties by the accused led to the acquittal, emphasizing the need for clear evidence in bribery cases.
The mere recovery of a bribe amount does not suffice for conviction; the prosecution must prove the demand for the bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
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 court upheld that demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act are distinct offences, allowing for separate convictions based on the same facts.
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 the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
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
