Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SURENDER
Krishnaiah – Appellant
Versus
State ACB, Hyderabad Range – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. SURENDER, J.
1. The appellant is A1 and A2 (acquitted) both were tried for the offences under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the appellant/A1 was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under each count vide judgment in C.C.No.22 of 2006 dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. A1 filed the present appeal aggrieved by the conviction.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1/defacto complainant lodged complaint on 05.08.2004, which is Ex.P1. In the said complaint, he narrated that his father purchased a plot of 105 sq.yds at Bagh Ameer, Kukatpally and wanted to obtain permission for construction of house from the Municipality, Kukatpally. Further for applying bank loan, a copy of the sale deed, link documents and certificate from the concerned MRO that the land falls under ‘Gramakantam’ had to be provided. On 29.07.2004, application was filed by P.W.1 in the MRO office on behalf of his father for issuance of certificate. The M.R.O signed on the application and directed it to be handed over to the appellant, who was then working
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.
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 necessity of proving demand for a bribe beyond reasonable doubt is crucial for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The mere recovery of money does not establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act without proof of demand for bribes.
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 prosecution must prove all the circumstances and events linking one another by producing evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
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....
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.
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
