Back
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER
Dr. Gurushantappa S. Bandi – Appellant
Versus
State of AP, rep. by DSP, ACB, City Range-I, Hyderabad – Respondent
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
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.
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
