Back
K. SURENDER
Atthar Hussain – Appellant
Versus
State ACB, Karimnagar Range, Adilabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant/AO is convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of 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.23 of 2002 dated 23.04.2007 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/P.W.1 was Sarpanch of Kamole Village in Bhainsa Mandal, Adilabad District and the Grampanchayat passed resolution during March and April, 1999 for construction of slabs over side drains at Kumsara, Hamlet of Kamole village and other works at the cost of Rs.1,30,000/-. P.W.1 undertook and completed the works during the month of October, 1999 and approached the appellant for recording in M books. However, no such recording was done though P.W.1 went around office of the appellant several times. On 27.01.2000, P.W.1 again requested the appellant at Mandal Parishad Office and the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.15,000/- to record in M books and reduced the said
Illegal gratification – Prosecution would succeed only when factum of demand is proved – Recovery aspect cannot be considered to infer that bribe was demanded.
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.
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 judgment establishes the principle that doubts regarding the possession and handling of incriminating evidence can lead to the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused.
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.
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
