Recovery Of Bribe Amount In Absence Of 'Demand' Insufficient For Conviction Under Prevention Of Corruption Act: Telangana High Court Reiterates

The judgment was delivered by Justice K. Surender in a criminal appeal filed by the accused/government official Narsimlu, challenging conviction order passed by the trial court for demanding bribe of Rs. 5,000 from the complainant to fix boundaries in land records.

The bribe amount was reportedly negotiated down to Rs. 2,000, and an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) trap was subsequently laid. During the trap, the complainant allegedly paid the bribe money to Narsimlu, and the ACB officials recovered Rs. 1,500 from him. While Rs. 500 was also found in the drawer of another official (A2) present in the office, A2 was acquitted by the court.

The trial court, relying on the recovered bribe money, convicted Narsimlu under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

However, the High Court overturned the conviction. In its judgement, the court emphasized the importance of establishing demand beyond a reasonable doubt in such cases. The Bench noted that the complainant claimed to be the purchaser of the land, but evidence of a sale deed between him and the actual landowner was absent. This raised questions about the complainant's true role in the matter.

“It is for the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to explain the sale transaction in between P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also as to how the amount of Rs.500/- was recovered from A2. Only for the reason of recovery of Rs.500/- from A2, who is acquitted, it cannot be inferred that appellant must have passed on the amount and placed it in the table drawer of A2, unless there is convincing evidence to prove as to how the amount of Rs.500/- travelled into the table drawer of A2, who was in another room. The prosecution has failed to prove 'demand' and the alleged partial recovery of the bribe amount from the appellant cannot be made basis to draw any inference of the version of P.W.1 being correct. In the back ground of the present case, the version given by the appellant appears to be more probable.”

Court said no evidence was placed by the prosecution to explain when the appellant went to A2 and placed the said amount in his table drawer.

It also found that that Narsimlu's explanation regarding the complainant's lack of ownership and the need for the landowner's presence held more weight. Thus, the appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside.

Kotla Narsimlu vs. The State of A.P. rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB, Hyderabad Range

Criminal Appeal No. 779 OF 2010

Counsel for appellant: C.Sharan Reddy

Counsel for State: Sridhar Chikyala Special Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 113

Click Here To Read/Download Order