Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER, J
P. Krishna Murthy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Surender, J.
1. The appellant/Accused officer filed the appeal questioning the conviction and sentence recorded by the I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in CC.No.67 of 2013, dated 06.05.2016, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Heard Sri Badeti Venkat Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.
3. PW.1 is the defacto complainant. He filed complaint with the ACB on 14.03.2013 at 2.00 p.m. According to PW.1, on 23.02.2013, his wife attempted suicide by consuming poison. She was joined in the hospital and the mother-in-law of PW.1 gave a report against him and his family. After discharge of the wife from the hospital, she started staying with PW.1. Five days after discharge, PW.1 went and met the S.I of Police-Krishna Murthy/Appellant in Kodair Police Station. PW.1 informed the appellant that one Kumaraiah and Niranjan were responsible for the attempt of suicide of his wife. However, the appellant informed that case was registered and PW.1 and his family members will b
The court affirmed that evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe, corroborated by positive test results, is sufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
The necessity of proving both demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases was emphasized.
Mere recovery of money divorced from circumstances under which it is paid cannot lead to conclusion of guilt.
Illegal gratification – Court must guard against cases of false implication.
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.
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.
Point of Law : Mere recovery from AO2 would not entail prosecution to seek drawl of presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act and shift burden on to appellant.
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
