Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER, J
Lakdev Ashok – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint details (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. trap proceedings (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. post-trap proceedings (Para 9) |
| 4. defense arguments (Para 12) |
| 5. prosecution arguments (Para 16) |
| 6. investigation shortcomings (Para 17 , 19) |
| 7. lack of evidence (Para 18) |
| 8. mediator's testimony (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. appeal outcome (Para 29) |
JUDGMENT :
K.SURENDER, J.
The appellant who worked as Mandal Revenue Inspector was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment under both counts.
Questioning the said conviction, present appeal was filed.
2. Heard Sri A.Viswanath, learned counsel for the appellant and Special Public Prosecutor for ACB appearing for the respondent-State.
3. PW.1 is the defacto complainant. According to him, he approached the appellant-Accused Officer on 02.02.2002 and requested to enter his name and his brothers names in the Pahanis, RoR register, on the basis of Civil Court’s order. Appellant then allegedly demanded Rs.18,000/- as bribe for making relevant entries into the RoR register and also for iss
The prosecution must prove the existence of a pending application for work to establish a bribery charge; failure to do so results in acquittal.
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 prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; if the accused proves his defence by preponderance of probability, the charge may not stand.
The court established that the demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a serious offense, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to disprove the allegations.
The absence of corroboration and completion of official duties by the accused led to the acquittal, emphasizing the need for clear evidence in bribery cases.
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 a bribe amount does not suffice for conviction; the prosecution must prove the demand for the bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of a bribe is insufficient.
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
