Back
K. SURENDER
Mohd. Abdul Khalique – Appellant
Versus
State ACB – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted 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. Aggrieved by the said conviction, present appeal is preferred.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/P.W.1 was running a sawmill and timber depot namely Vinayaka Sawmill and Timber Depot. His licence expired on 31.12.2002 as such, he submitted application (Ex.P2) along with challan (Ex.P3) for renewal on 01.01.2003 addressed to the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO). His licence was not renewed till 10.03.2003, as such, he met the appellant, who was working as Forest Range Officer (FRO). The appellant allegedly demanded Rs.10,000/- for processing the file and also informed that Sub- Divisional Forest Officer (SDFO)-P.W.4 had made remarks in the application. On 23.03.2003, P.W.1 again met the appellant for forwarding the renewal application for licence. However, the amount was again demanded. Four days thereafter i.e., on 27.03.2003 when P.W.1 met appellant, P.W.1 was asked to pay an amount
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 absence of corroboration and completion of official duties by the accused led to the acquittal, emphasizing the need for clear evidence in bribery cases.
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 necessity of proving demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act was affirmed, with emphasis on the burden of proof resting on the accused.
The prosecution must prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, even if the primary witness turns hostile.
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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
