Telangan HC repeals the conviction in accordance with the PC Act

Putting aside the conviction of an engineer’s assistant on the basis of the Act on preventing corruption for allegedly demanding a bribe in order to extend the benefits of the country sanctioned by the country for some people, the Supreme Court in Tlangan stated that the prosecutor’s office did not prove over the justified doubt the officer demanded a bribe.

Referring to judgments in the Supreme Court, the Tribunal also stated that the prosecutor’s office could not rely on the recovery of allegedly sought after by the accused as a bribe.

Justice K. Surender next He pointed out that all witnesses of the prosecutor’s office, including a de facto complaint, became an enemy. He noticed that the only proof was that the independent mediator, which was found that the officer’s witnesses were demanding a bribe on the day of the trap. He noticed, however, that the mediator report did not reflect that a given mediator was directed to the place where the trap was arranged.

“The prosecutor’s office has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that A1 demanded a bribe. PW1/applicants and P.S.3 to 11 beneficiaries became hostile. In addition, as already mentioned, there was no official work in anticipation of A1. The prosecutor’s office may not rely on recovering the amount from the appeal as the basis for the application“Said the court.

He also noticed “The only proof is PW2 (independent mediators), who states that on the trap day he witnessed A1 (appearing) demanding and accepting a bribe. PW16 admitted that the ex.p3/First Mediators report does not reflect that PW16 (DSP) instructed PW2 to accompany PW1 (in fact the applicant) at House A1. PW16 also admitted that in addition to his oral evidence, there is no other evidence that he instructed PW2 to accompany PW1. PW2 admitted that he had previously acted as a mediator in another case. PW2 also admitted that in EX.P10, the 2nd Mediators’ report, did not reflect that A1 (appearing) demanded a bribe, and when PW1 (de Favator applicant) replied, A1 accepted the amount and held in his pocket on the hip.“.

The Court further referred to the Supreme Court’s decision N.VIJAY KUMAR is Tamil Nadu If the aspect of demand is considered to be proved beyond the justified doubt by the prosecutor’s office, the issue of relying on the recovery of the amount, in order to prove the case against the appeal, the appeal is unacceptable. ”

The regulation was issued in the Penal Appeals Party, submitted by the convicted accused and the second preferred by the state against the acquittal of the other accused.

The case of the prosecutor’s office consisted in the fact that the state had started the Indiramma Adarsh ​​Gram housing program to help people build Pucca houses by providing raw materials and other financial assistance.

According to the applicant De-Facto (PW1), only a few people in its location received cement, while the second was not even given. All of them were not extended by any other benefits that were part of the program. Defacto the complaint and others turned to the convicted accused (appearing), who demanded the RS bribes. 500 from each person, in total to RS. 22,000.

This led to a complaint and initiating trap proceedings. According to the applicant and other accused No. 2 (working inspector at Apstate Housing Corporation Limited) he also insisted on paying a bribe and was in Cahoots with an appeal. Next, the accused No. 2 was closely involved in sanctioning funds.

However, since the bribe was to be paid to the appeal, the trap was initiated against him. A trap clerk who allegedly sent an independent witness with the applicant to observe the situation and report.

After setting the trap, the appeal and the mediator went to the former house, and when the bride was accused of being accepted, she signaled the officers who entered the accused’s house and found a contaminated note in the pocket of the accused and a trap for the remains of the powder on the hands of the accused.

On the basis of the same criminal proceedings, the appellant (accused 1) and accused of the first instance court sentenced the appeal in accordance with sections 7 and section 13 para. 1 lit. d) PC Act and accused 2.

The bench noticed that the files have not yet reached the A1 office, and the question about sanctions will not even arise. In addition, the bench emphasized that all witnesses became hostile, and the only proof of prosecution was a report provided by an independent mediator. It also noticed in Karnatak’s condition against Chandrasha What was reached by the prosecutor’s office, the demand was registered on the tape, and the Supreme Court stated that the burden was accused of overthrowing the accusation that the bribe was a legal fee or repayment of the loan. Hence, the court noticed that the facts were different in the present case.

“The applicant Defacto and all other beneficiaries became hostile. When recording video or sound, no instruments were used during trap. PW2 entry into the house of A1 on the trap day is doubtful, as already discussed,– he said.

In this way, the appeal lodged by the appeal was permitted and the appeal lodged by the state was dismissed.

Title of the case: B. Balkishan vs. State ACB, Ciu Range and The State Rep. By the police inspector, ACB, Ciu Range vs Shaik Waheeduddin

The accused’s lawyer: Vinod Kumar Deshpande, senior advisor

State Advocate: Special PP T Bala Mohan Reddy Assisted by Mohammad Nazeeruddin Khan

Click here to read/download the order