Topic Details
Topics Headnote Judgement
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 PDF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 PC Act — Ss 7 & 13(1) (d)(i)&(ii) — Conviction under — Hostile complainant — turned hostile on two important aspects namely, demand and acceptance of bribe — Shadow witness — did not hear the conversation between the appellant and the complainant — Held, statements made by the appellant in his examination u/s 313, CrPC, the evidence of shadow witness and Raiding Officer — it is clear that there was no demand of bribe money — Acquittal. PDF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 PC Act — S 7 — Offence under —illegal gratification — Demand of — is sine qua non to constitute the said offence — mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence u/s 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe —B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh; ABC 2014 (I) 309(SC)— relied. PDF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 PC Act — Ss 7 & 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) — Bribe money — Recovery of — Held, mere recovery by itself, would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained—B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh; ABC 2014 (I) 309(SC)— relied. PDF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 PC Act — Ss 7 & 13— imperative pre- requisites of — Held, mere possession and recovery of currency notes — from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) —B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh; ABC 2014 (I) 309(SC)— relied. PDF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 PC Act — Ss 7 & 13— Illegal gratification — Demand — Proof of — absence of — the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved— The proof of demand is an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence u/s 7 & 13—B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh; ABC 2014 (I) 309(SC)— relied. PDF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 PC Act — Ss 7 & 13(1) (d)(i)&(ii) — offence under — Illegal gratification — Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, — would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act —B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh; ABC 2014 (I) 309(SC)— relied. PDF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 PC Act — Ss 7 & 13— Illegal gratification — demand for — Failure to prove — Held, would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence u/s 7 or 13 would not entail conviction thereunder —B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh; ABC 2014 (I) 309(SC)— relied. PDF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988  PC Act — S 20 — Presumption under — prerequisite of — Held, Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification could follow only if there was proof of demand— in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption u/s 20 would also not arise—B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh; ABC 2014 (I) 309(SC)— relied. PDF