Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K.SURENDER
Madhava Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.SURENDER, J.
This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused questioning the conviction recorded by the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, in CC.No.19 of 2008, dated 11.04.2012, for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w. Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”).
2. The case of the prosecution is that PW.1 is the correspondent of RNT Memorial Shantiniketan School at Karimnagar. He lodged a complaint with the CBI. According to PW.1, the institution was paying the contribution of the Provident Fund for the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school since the year 2003. The appellant was working as the Enforcement Officer in the office of PFO, Sub- Regional office, at Karimnagar. The appellant used to visit the institution and verify the files pertaining to the EPF (Employees provident Fund) regarding the contribution made by the institution to its employees. The institution used to maintain all the required registers. The appellant went to the institution in November 2006 and informed the management that they have to pay EPF contribution immediately and also asked for giving a cheque. Accordingly, a postdated chequ
The appellant's conviction for corruption was overturned due to insufficient evidence and reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's claims.
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.
Illegal gratification – Court must guard against cases of false implication.
The necessity of proving both demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases was emphasized.
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 the existence of a pending application for work to establish a bribery charge; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The necessity of proving a clear demand for a bribe is essential for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(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 ....
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
