HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SURENDER, J.
Dr. Gurushantappa S. Bandi - Appellant
Versus
The State of AP, rep. by DSP, ACB, City Range-I, Hyderabad – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1643 of 2007, Criminal Appeal No.1682 of 2007
Decided On : 09-04-2025
JUDGMENT :.
(K. SURENDER, J.)
1. Criminal Appeal No.1682 of 2007 was filed by A1 and Criminal Appeal No.1643 of 2007 was filed by A2.
2. A1 and A2 were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half years, each under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide judgment in C.C.No.50 of 2003 dated 15.11.2007, passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
3. Since both the appeals are questioning the conviction of the appellants/A1 and A2, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Judgment.
4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/P.W.1 was a final year M.B.B.S Student at Osmania Medical College. There were practical examinations scheduled from 06.05.2002 to 15.05.2002. For the evaluation of the practical exams, the college has two professors who are internal evaluators and two professors from outside the college who would be external evaluators. A1 and A2 were appointed as external evaluators. The practical exam of PW.1 was scheduled on 04.05.2002. P.W.1 was asked to come to the Osmania Medical College Guest house, room No.4, by A1 on 10.05.2002. A1 demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- from P.W.1 for awarding passing marks in the internal exams. A1 then insisted that the amount had to be paid by 15.05.2002, which was the last date of the examination. The next day, i.e., on 11.05.2002, during the practical examination, A2 also demanded Rs.6,000/- from P.W.1 for awarding passing marks in the practical examination.
5. P.W.1 was not willing to pay any bribe to A1 and A2, as such, he approached the DSP, ACB on 13.05.202, and lodged Ex.P1- complaint, which was received by DSP/P.W.12. P.W.1 was asked to come on 14.05.2002.
6. A1 was staying in Osmania Medical College Guest room and A2 was staying in Mahaveer Hotel. P.W.9/independent mediator, and another mediator, namely M.A.A.Farooqui (L.W.12), who was working in the office of Commissioner and Director of Horticulture, Hyderabad, were asked to act as independent mediators for the trap of A1 in the Osmania Medical College Guest House. P.W.10 and one Sai Baba, who was working as Co-operative Sub Registrar in the office of the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Hyderabad, were asked to act as mediators for the entrapment of A2. The complaint was registered at 5.00 p.m, on 14.05.2002, and the trap party, who gathered in the ACB office, started the pre-trap proceedings at 5.15 p.m. The amount of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.6,000/-, meant for A1 and A2, respectively, were kept in separate pockets of P.W.1.
7. After concluding the pre-trap proceedings/Ex.P18, P.Ws.1, 9, L.W.12, P.W.12, and two Inspectors, namely J.Bhadreeswar and S.Thrimurthulu, went to the Guest house at Osmania Medical College. They reached the Osmania Medical College around 7.30 p.m. P.W.1 went inside the room where A1 was staying. According to P.W.1, when he knocked the door of room No.4, A1 opened the door and questioned him about Rs.5,000/-. When P.W.1 took out the amount of Rs.5,000/-, A1 asked him to keep the bribe amount underneath the bed-sheet. PW.1 kept the amount as directed by A1, went out of the room, and signaled to the trap party. Having received signal from P.W.1, the DSP, P.W.9, and other trap party members went inside the room of A1. Sodium carbonate solution was prepared and the hands of A1 were tested. However, they remained colourless. When questioned, A1 pointed towards the currency notes which were kept underneath the bedsheet. The money was recovered.
8. At 8.30 p.m, P.W.1 and P.W.12 went to Mahaveer Hotel, where P.W.10, another mediator, and two other ACB inspectors were waiting. P.W.1 then went and met A2 in the room No.408. According to P.W.1, when he knocked the door and when A2 came out, he demanded the amount of Rs.6,000/-. A2 took the bribe amount from P.W.1 and kept it in his right-side trous
The mere recovery of money does not establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act without proof of demand for bribes.
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.
Proof of demand is essential for establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery without proof of demand cannot lead to conviction.
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.
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
In bribery cases, both demand and acceptance of the bribe must be established for conviction; mere recovery of bribe without proof of demand is insufficient.
(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 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 a clear demand for a bribe is essential for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.