Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER
M.Subramanyam A1 – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.SURENDER, J.
1. The appellant/A1, who worked as the Sub-Treasury Officer, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar District, was trapped by the ACB, on the allegation of demanding and accepting the bribe of Rs.5,000/- from the defacto complainant/P.W.1. The prosecution version was believed by the learned Additional Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, who convicted the appellant/A1 for the offences under Section 7 and Sections 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under both counts vide judgment in C.C.No.10 of 2008 dated 21.07.2010. Questioning the said conviction, present appeal is filed. A2 was found not guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w13(2) of the Act.
2. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.
3. Briefly, the case of the defacto complainant/P.W.1 is that he was working as Sericulture officer at Banswada, Nizamabad. He was deputed to work at Banswada of Nizamabad. His seniority was fixed, and the Assistant Director, Sericulture, Shadnagar su
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.
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of a bribe; mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction without evidence of demand.
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.
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
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.
The necessity of proving demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act was affirmed, with emphasis on the burden of proof resting on the accused.
The burden of proof of proving the demand of illegal gratification lies with the prosecution, and if the demand is not proved, the prosecution case fails.
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
