Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER
T.Ethishwar – Appellant
Versus
State Of A.P Rep. By Inspector Of Police, ACB, Hyderabad Range – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction of accused under prevention of corruption act (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. details of bribe demand and acceptance (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. witness statements and their credibility (Para 8 , 18 , 21) |
| 4. arguments presented by the defense. (Para 9) |
| 5. legal precedents on demand proof (Para 10 , 12 , 23) |
| 6. key legal arguments and precedents. (Para 11 , 13) |
| 7. discussion on jurisdiction and authority. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 8. analyzing evidence and establishing demand. (Para 19 , 20 , 22) |
| 9. conclusion and acquittal of appellants (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT:
K. Surender, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No.375 of 2012 was filed by A1 and Criminal Appeal No.376 of 2012 was filed by A2. Criminal Appeal No.377 of 2012 was filed by A3. Since A3 died, Criminal Appeal No.377 of 2012 stands abated.
2. A1, A2 and A3 were convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and two years, each, respectively under both counts and A3 was convicted for the offence under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to rigorous imp
Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, mere recovery of bribes does not suffice for conviction without demonstrable proof of demand, especially if the complainant turns hostile.
The prosecution must prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, even if the primary witness turns hostile.
Acceptance of bribes and the legitimacy of prosecution evidence under the Prevention of Corruption Act were affirmed, with modifications to sentencing based on the appellant's health and age.
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 demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction.
Circumstantial evidence can substantiate a prosecution case even if the main witness turns hostile, as upheld by the court in this case.
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
