LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus P. VENKATESHWARLU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 6 S.C.R. 262 STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. P. VENKATESHWARLU (Criminal Appeal No.1317 of 2008) MAY06,2015 [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] c PreventionofCorruptionAct, 1988-ss. 7and13(1)(d) rlw s. 13(2) - Case of illegal gratification - Trap laid and the accused caught demanding and accepting bribe - Conviction and sentence uls. 7 and 13(1)(d) rlw s. 13(2) by trial court, however set aside by the High Court - On appeal, held: D Essential ingredient of demand and acceptance of bribe proved by the prosecution - Recovery of tainted money proved- Same was witnessed by key eye witnesses and their testimonies corroborated by other material witnesses - Offence u/s. 7 confirmed by the unchallenged recovery of E the tainted amount - Defense raised various presumptions to disprove the prosecution case - However, no evidence adduced by accused, to rebut the presumption u/s. 20 - Further, the probability of the accused not being present cannot be considered - Suggestion that document writers F set up the trap to implicate the accused cannot be accepted - Thus, the order of acquittal by the High Court set aside and the order of conviction and sentence by the trial court restored. G Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the factum of demand and acceptance was proved by the recovery of the tainted amount and the factum of there being a H demand has also been stated. The essential ingredient 262 STATE OF A. P. v. P. VENKATESHWARLU 263 of demand and acceptance has been proved by the A prosecution based on the factum of the case. It has been witnessed by the key eye witnesses and their testimonies have also been corroborated by other material witnesses. The offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act has been confirmed by the B unchallenged recovery of the tainted amount. Thus, it is the obligation of the court to raise the presumption mandated by Section 20 of P.C. Act. It is for the accused respondentto rebutthe presumption, by adducing direct or circumstantial evidence, that the money recovered C was not a reward or motive as mentioned u/s. 7 of the P.C. Act. The defense raised various presumptions to disprove the prosecution case. However, it has not been able to adduce evidence, on the basis of which the 0 presumption u/s. 20 could be rebutted. [Para 10, 11] [271- D-G; 272-B-C] 1.2 The accused has neither taken the plea of alibi for the visit on the 18.3.1995 and nor has proved the factum of not being present on the first date when the E alleged demand was made, beyond all doubt. Therefore, the probability of his not being present cannot be considered. The suggestion as to document writers setting up the trap to implicate the accused due to the F inimical relations seems to be very farfetched. All the remaining suggestions were not adduced by any direct or circumstantial evidence, as required under law. [Paras 1'2-13] [272-G-H; 273-A, D-E] 1.3 The order of acquittal passed by the High Court G , is set aside. The judgment and order passed by the Principle Special Judge convicting and sentencing the accused respondent u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) rw s. 13(2) is restored. [Para 14] [273-G] H 264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 6 S.C.R. A Narendra Champaklal Trivedi Vs. State of Gujarat 2012 (6) SCR 165: (2012) 7 SCC 80; State of Punjab vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma 2013 (7) SCR 1130: (2013) 14 SCC 153; C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala 2009 (2) SCR 1021: (2009) 3 SCC 779; B Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2012 (4) SCR 408:(2012) 6 sec 204- referred to. Case Law Reference 2012 (6) SCR 165 Referred to. Para 10 c 2013 (7) SCR 1130 Referred to. Para 10 2009 (2) SCR 1021 Referred to. Para 11 2012 (4) SCR 408 Referred to. Para 12 D CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1317 of 2008. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.07.2006 of the High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 149 E of2000. F S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Krishna Kumar Singh, D. Mahesh Babu for the Appellants. T. Anamika, B. V. Chandan for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. - 1. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh G against the judgment and order dated 10.7.2006 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, whereby the High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.