Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K.Surender
State Rep. By SPL.P.P. Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
Arvind Kumar Ajmera Secunderabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Surender, J.
This appeal is filed by the State-Central Bureau of Investigation, aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW.1- Mr.J.Laxman Rao-the defacto complainant, who is a contractor in the Military Engineer Services (for short ‘MES’) lodged complaint with the SP, CBI, Hyderabad, on 02.12.2000 at about 9.00 A.M, alleging that the accused had demanded Rs.20,000/- as bribe for clearing his final bill of C.A.No.75 and for accepting the tender (file No.8617). An FIR in the above case was registered immediately for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A trap was laid immediately on the same day. The trap party caught the accused when he accepted an amount of Rs.20,000/- from PW.1 in the presence of PW.2-an independent mediator and accompanying witness. After concluding investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that the accused had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.20,000/
The appellate court cannot reverse an acquittal unless the trial court's findings are clearly based on illegality or incorrect consideration of evidence.
An order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence and should not be reversed unless substantial and compelling reasons exist.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proof of demand of illegal gratification and its acceptance for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of....
Point of law: So far as the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is concerned, it trite that even the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptanc....
The appellate court must respect the trial court's acquittal unless compelling reasons justify interference; two reasonable conclusions cannot disturb the trial court's findings.
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.
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
