Back
K. SURENDER
N. Rajendra Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by Inspector of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant/AO is convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act of 1988 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively, vide judgment in CC No.28 of 2003 dated 27.12.2007 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 appellant was working as Assistant Electrical Inspector, Standard Laboratory, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. The defacto complainant was possessing wireman permit. On 16.09.2000, he obtained application form to get ‘B’ Grade Electrical Contractors Licence from the office of the Secretary, A.P. Electrical Licencing Board, Hyderabad. As per the requirement, a test certificate has to be enclosed along with the application. P.W.1 paid challan of Rs.100/-towards the testing fee. On 21.09.2000, he went to the Standard Laboratory and on purchasing challan, he was issued instrument testing application form. The said form was filled up by P.W.1 and approached t
Mere recovery of amount from accused officer will not suffice to draw a presumption under Section 20 of Act of 1988 to shift burden on to accused officer.
Illegal gratification – Proof of demand is sine qua non for convicting a person under Section 7 of P.C. Act – Mere recovery of amount is of no consequence.
The prosecution must prove all the circumstances and events linking one another by producing evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Point of Law : Hon’ble Supreme Court held that though there was any irregularity in a proceeding, such irregularity should have been resulted in causing prejudice to accused.
Illegal gratification – Prosecution would succeed only when factum of demand is proved – Recovery aspect cannot be considered to infer that bribe was demanded.
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
