Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER
E. Ganga Ram – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.SURENDER, J.
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.45 of 2004 dated 29.10.2009, passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, 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 approached the DSP, ACB, and lodged a complaint on 29.04.2003. According to P.W.1, he purchased two plots in the year 2003, admeasuring 166.66 sq.yds. The sale deed was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Adilabad. On 19.04.2003, P.W.1 met the appellant, and requested him to return the original sale deeds Exs.P1 and P2, for which, the demand for Rs.500/- was made by the appellant. Again on 21.04.2003, P.W.1 met the appellant, and requested him to give the sale deeds. However, the appellant reiterated his demand and informed that he would not give Exs.P1 and P2 unless the demand for a bribe was fulfilled.
3. On 29.04.2003, P.W.1 met DSP, ACB/P.W.6
The court emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence, finding the prosecution's case doubtful due to reliance on an interested witness and prior delivery of documents, leading to the acquitta....
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of a bribe is insufficient.
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.
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 : 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 both the demand and acceptance of a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction.
(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 ....
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.
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of a bribe; mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction without evidence of demand.
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
