Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER
T. Sankar Narayana Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, respectively, vide judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 dated 30.06.2011, passed by the II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the present appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. He was working as Assistant Engineer in the office of Agriculture Marketing Committee, Warangal. The appellant worked as Executive Engineer in the said office and he was superior to P.W.1. The contract work was awarded to M/s. Satyamurthy Constructions for laying cement concrete at Chilly Sabad at part-III at Market Yard Ennmamula, and balance cement concrete work at Chilly Sabad Part-IV, Market Yard Enmamula. The contract work was awarded to Satyamurthy Constructions on a tender basis. The said construction work was represented by P.W.4/Srinivas Reddy. After entering into the contract, the contract work was executed within the stipulated time. In all, P.W.1 prepared 8 bills for making p
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of a bribe; mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction without evidence of demand.
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 its case beyond reasonable doubt; if the accused proves his defence by preponderance of probability, the charge may not stand.
(1) Examination of witnesses – Once examination-in-chief is complete, question of ‘further chief-examination’ does not arise – Prosecution cannot adopt method of further chief-examination to fill in ....
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.
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction.
Illegal gratification – Prosecution would succeed only when factum of demand is proved – Recovery aspect cannot be considered to infer that bribe was demanded.
The court emphasized the necessity for credible evidence to support bribery allegations, extending the benefit of doubt to the accused due to significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.
Point of Law : Mere recovery from AO2 would not entail prosecution to seek drawl of presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act and shift burden on to appellant.
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
