Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER
L.Venkateshwara Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of AP, through Inspector of Police, Hyderabad Range – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.SURENDER, J.
1. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 7 and Sections 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year, respectively, vide judgment in C.C.No.43 of 2005, dated 07.12.2010. Questioning the said conviction, present appeal is filed.
2. Heard Sri M.B.Thimma Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant worked as the Special Revenue Inspector in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Himayatnagar Mandal. The complainant/P.W.1 was the GPA holder of Nawab Mohd.Kabiruddin Khan. He submitted an application along with requisite documents on 04.08.2003 in the MRO office for the issuance of Fasil Pahani copies Nos.1355 and 1356 in Sy.No.2002/2 at Bagh Lingampally. P.W.1 approached the office of the MRO after one month. Since the MRO was not available, he approached the Dy.MRO-T.Damodar Reddy/P.W.4 and enquired about his application. P.W.4 directed the appellant to attend the work of P.W.1. As such, P.W.1 approached the appel
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.
(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 ....
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.
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of a bribe is insufficient.
The prosecution must prove all the circumstances and events linking one another by producing evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
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.
The prosecution must prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictory evidence from the main witness can lead to acquittal.
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
