Скачать или смотреть Prevention of Corruption Act l Acquittal l Section 7 l Dr. Jinesh Soni l 2025

In This Video I Have Discussed That -
Setting aside the conviction of an assistant engineer under Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding a bribe to extend the benefit of a State-sanctioned housing scheme to certain individuals, the Telangana High Court said that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the officer demanded a bribe.

Referring to judgments on the Supreme Court the court further said that the prosecution cannot rely on recovery of the amount allegedly sought as a bribe by the accused to infer demand.


Justice K. Surender further pointed out that all prosecution witnesses including the de facto complaint had turned hostile. It noted that the only evidence was that of an independent mediator who was stated to have witnesses the officer demand a bribe on the date of the trap proceedings. However it noted that mediator's report did not reflect that the mediator in question was directed to go the place where trap was laid out.


"The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that A1 demanded bribe. P.W.1/complainant and P.Ws.3 to 11 beneficiaries have turned hostile. Further, as already discussed, there was no official work pending with A1. The prosecution cannot rely on the recovery of the amount from the appellant as the basis to infer demand," the court said.

It also noted, “The only evidence is that of P.W.2 (independent mediators), who states that on the date of trap, he witnessed A1 (appellant) demanding and accepting bribe. P.W.16 admitted that Ex.P3/first mediators' report does not reflect that P.W.16 (DSP) instructed P.W.2 to accompany P.W.1 (de facto complainant) to the house of A1. P.W.16 further admitted that apart from his oral evidence, there is no other evidence to show that he has instructed P.W.2 to accompany P.W.1. P.W.2 admitted that he had earlier acted as a mediator in another case. P.W.2 further admitted that in Ex.P10, 2nd mediators report, it is not reflected that A1 (appellant) demanded bribe and when P.W.1 (de factor complainant) affirmatively replied, A1 accepted the amount and kept in his hip pocket”.


The court further referred to Supreme Court's decision in N.Vijay Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu where it was held that "unless the demand aspect is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, the question of relying on recovery of the amount, to prove the case against appellant is unacceptable".

The order was passed in a batch of criminal appeals, one filed by the convicted accused and the other preferred by the State against the acquittal of the second accused.


The case of the prosecution was that the State had launched the Indiramma Adarsha Grama Housing Scheme to help individuals in the construction of pucca houses by providing raw materials and other monetary assistance.

According to the de-facto complainant (PW1), only a few individuals in his locality were given cement, while the other were not even given that. All were not extended any other benefits that were part of the scheme. The de-facto complaint along with others approached the convicted accused (appellant) who demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 from each individual, totalling to Rs. 22,000.

This led to the filing of the complaint and initiation of the trap proceedings. According to the complainant and others accused no.2 (Work Inspector in A.P.State Housing Corporation Limited) had also insisted on the payment of the bribe and was in cahoots with appellant. Accused No. 2 further was alleged to be closely involved in the sanctioning of funds.

Dr. Jinesh Soni
9772946899