Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
JUVVADI SRIDEVI
Itta Upender Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana represented by Special Public Prosecutor for CBI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of case facts related to bribery. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's observations on evidence and procedure. (Para 2) |
ORDER :
Juvvadi Sridevi, J.
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.2 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned I Additional Special Judge for Central Bureau of Investigation Cases, Hyderabad (for short ‘the learned trial Court’) registered for the offences under Sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’) read with Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘the Act’).
2. Heard Sri V.R.Machavaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Srinivas Kapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Central Bureau of Investigation. Perused the record.
3(a). The brief facts of the case are that, based on a complaint dated 11.11.2020 lodged by Shri Kammari Kalappa before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad, it was alleged that the accused No.1, an Income Tax Inspector, demanded an undue advantage of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant for closing a Tax Evasion Petition pending against him before the Income Tax Officer, Unit-I, Income Tax
Proof of demand and acceptance is essential to establish charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere possession of tainted currency does not constitute an offence.
Requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act is critical for conviction; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
Mere recovery of tainted notes without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance insufficient for conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) PC Act; demand is sine qua non, presumption under Section 20 ina....
Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) PC Act; mere recovery insufficient without proof, especially absent pending official work & with hostile sha....
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
The demand and recovery of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The demand and acceptance of bribes must be proven for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, highlighting its critical role in establishing culpability.
The demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money without evidence of demand is insufficient for convictio....
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
