Back
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
E.V.VENUGOPAL
Bollineni Ramana Rao – Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
1. Challenge in this criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C was laid to the judgment dated 29.12.2017 passed in C.C.No.29 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder the appellant herein was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ - for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ - for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) r/ w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2 The factual matrix that led to the filing of this appeal is as follows:
a. One Padma Rao (P.W.1) who was the Managing Director of Hiranya Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad, gave report to the ACB officials alleging that the appellant who works as Superintendent in the office of Director, Works Accounts, A.P. demanded Rs.5,000/ - as bribe in connection with the fixation of commission to be paid to him. P.W.1 was supplying Data Processing Officers (who we
The prosecution must prove both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was not established in this instance.
The prosecution must prove the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification, and once these foundational facts are proved, there is a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Co....
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is essential for establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was satisfactorily proved in this case.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe as a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence beyond the complainant's testimony....
The court reaffirmed that a public servant's demand for a bribe must be supported by evidence of their capacity to provide an official favor, as required under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The lack of proof of demand for illegal gratification is a crucial factor in determining the conviction under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act.
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
