{ "metadata": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The appellant challenges the conviction by disputing the credibility of the trap and claiming no actual demand was ever made. He maintains that a co-accused\u2019s possession of part of the money or alleged forcible placement of funds by P.W.1 does not establish guilt. The prosecution asserts that the trap was conducted lawfully and that recovery of marked currency from the appellant\u2019s pocket or possession, coupled with his inability to explain it satisfactorily, supports a presumption of guilt.", "bench": [ "The Hon\u0027ble Mr. Justice K. SURENDER" ], "case_number": [ "Crl.A. No. 779 of 2010" ], "cases_referred": [ "B.Jayaraj vs State of A.P [2014(13) SCC 55]", "N.Vijayakumar vs State of T.N [2012(3) SCC 687]", "P.Satyanarayana Murthy vs District Inspector of Police, State of A.P [2015(10) SCC 152]", "K.Shantamma vs State of Telangana [MANU/SC/0218/2022]", "Punjabrao vs State of Maharashtra [2002(10) SCC 371]", "Bansilal Yadav vs State of Bihar [1981(3) SCC 69]" ], "chunkwise_data": { "chunk_1": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The appellant challenges the validity of the conviction, presumably questioning the credibility of the trap and the evidence collected, while the prosecution contends that the trap was conducted lawfully and demonstrates the appellant\u2019s culpability.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": "19.06.2024", "facts": "The appellant was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, having allegedly demanded and accepted a bribe from the defacto complainant who had purchased land and required a correction in the revenue records. A trap was set by the ACB, leading to the appellant\u2019s arrest. Aggrieved by the conviction, the appellant has filed this appeal before this Court. The case reached its present stage after the trial court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment.", "final_status": "Not provided in the excerpt", "formatted_summary": "This excerpt relates to a criminal appeal filed by the appellant after being convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting a bribe from a land purchaser seeking corrections in revenue records. A trap was set by the ACB, leading to the appellant\u2019s arrest and subsequent conviction. The appellant has appealed the trial court\u2019s decision.", "held": "Not provided in the excerpt", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the appellant\u2019s conviction for demanding and receiving a bribe is sustainable in light of the evidence presented.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988": "1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under both counts, vide judgment in C.C.No.8 of 2007 dated 18.06.2010 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE \u0026 ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed." } }, "chunk_2": { "analysis_of_arguments": "Counsel for the appellant contends that P.W.1 acted out of spite after an altercation and forcibly pushed money into the appellant\u2019s pocket. The prosecution asserts that the appellant\u2019s possession of the marked currency and failure to offer a convincing explanation support a presumption of guilt, thereby justifying the trial court\u2019s conviction.", "cases_referred": [ "B.Jayaraj vs State of A.P (2014(13) SCC 55)", "N.Vijayakumar vs State of T.N (2012(3) SCC 687)", "P.Satyanarayana Murthy vs District Inspector of Police, State of A.P (2015(10) SCC 152)", "K.Shantamma vs State of Telangana (MANU/SC/0218/2022)", "Punjabrao vs State of Maharashtra (2002(10) SCC 371)", "Bansilal Yadav vs State of Bihar (1981(3) SCC 69)" ], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "The prosecution alleges that the appellant, employed in the MRO office, demanded a bribe from P.W.1 in relation to correcting entries in revenue records. A trap was set, during which the appellant was found with part of the marked money in his right pant pocket, while another portion was allegedly recovered from a different location linked to a co-accused. The trial court framed charges for corruption offences, heard witnesses, and admitted documentary materials. Ultimately, the trial court convicted the appellant and acquitted the second accused.", "final_status": "Not indicated in the provided text", "formatted_summary": "This excerpt details a corruption case where the appellant was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe. The prosecution arranged a trap, which led to the recovery of marked money from the appellant. The co-accused was acquitted due to insufficient evidence. The appellant\u2019s primary defense was that P.W.1 forcibly placed the money in his pocket following a disagreement. The trial court, after examining witnesses and exhibits, convicted the appellant but acquitted the second accused. No final outcome of any subsequent appeal is provided in the text.", "held": "No final holding is stated in the provided excerpt. The arguments revolve around challenging the bribery conviction and the trial court\u2019s reliance on the presumption against the appellant.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether there was sufficient proof of the appellant\u2019s demand and acceptance of the alleged bribe and whether the evidence corroborated the prosecution\u2019s version to sustain a conviction under the relevant provisions of the corruption laws.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Code of Criminal Procedure": "v) Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra- 2002(10) SCC 371: The accused is acquitted by taking into consideration his probable explanation under section 313 of Cr.P.C.", "The Prevention of Corruption Act": "Paragraph 7: Learned Special Judge having framed charges under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, commenced trial. P.Ws.1 to 8 and Exs.P1 to P21 were brought on record on behalf of the prosecution. MOs.1 to 13 were also placed on record. On behalf of the appellant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked.\n\nSub-paragraph (i) from paragraph 11: A three judge bench of the Supreme Court held that proof of demand is sine qua non to prove the offences punishable under Section 7 \u0026 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was held that mere recovery of the bribe amount is not sufficient to prove the above offences. It was also held that proof of acceptance of a bribe can only follow if there is proof of demand. Moreover it was held that the presumption under section 20 of the Act can be drawn only if there is proof of acceptance of demand of bribe." } }, "chunk_3": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The prosecution contended that the appellant had demanded a bribe and partially received it. The defence argued that no demand was raised by the appellant, that P.W.1 was not the rightful owner, and that the partial recovery from a co-accused did not implicate the appellant in any wrongdoing.", "cases_referred": [ "B.Jayaraj vs State of A.P [2014(13) SCC 55]", "P.Satyanarayana Murthy vs District Inspector of Police, State of A.P [2015(10) SCC 152]", "K.Shantamma vs State of Telangana [MANU/SC/0218/2022]", "Punjabrao vs State of Maharashtra [2002(10) SCC 371]", "Bansilal Yadav vs State of Bihar [1981(3) SCC 69]" ], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "A trap was laid on 21.04.2005 alleging that the appellant demanded illegal gratification for processing certain land-related work. P.W.1, who was not the actual landowner, claimed an agreement of sale with P.W.2 but did not produce proper proof of the transaction. The trial court in C.C. No.8 of 2007, by judgment dated 18.06.2010, convicted the appellant for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. On appeal, it was noted that the prosecution had not established a clear demand of bribe or proper linkage of the recovered amount to the appellant, leading to the present acquittal.", "final_status": "The appellant is acquitted.", "formatted_summary": "In this corruption case, the appellant was implicated for allegedly demanding and accepting part of a bribe. The lower court convicted him, but on appeal, the demand was found unproven and the partial recovery inconclusive, resulting in his acquittal.", "held": "The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of demand for illegal gratification. In the absence of such proof, partial recovery alone could not establish guilt, and the appellant was acquitted.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether proof of demand of illegal gratification was adequately established, and if partial recovery of the alleged bribe could suffice to corroborate the demand against the appellant.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Code of Criminal Procedure": "v) Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra- 2002(10) SCC 371: The accused is acquitted by taking into consideration his probable explanation under section 313 of Cr.P.C.", "Prevention of Corruption Act": "iii) P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P (2015(10) SCC 152). A three judge bench of the Supreme Court held that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offences punishable under Section 7 \u0026 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in the absence of the same, the charge would fail. It was also held that mere acceptance and recovery of the illegal gratification would not be sufficient to prove the above charges.\n\nvi) Bansilal Yadav v. State of Bihar -1981(3) SCC 69: The presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be raised when the defence of thrusting is taken by the accused." } }, "chunk_4": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The prosecution argued the appellant demanded and partially received the bribe, citing the recovery of money. The appellant contended that no demand was proven and that the possession of money by a different accused did not implicate him. He further maintained the prosecution\u2019s evidence did not conclusively establish the alleged demand.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": "19.06.2024", "facts": "The appellant was charged along with a co-accused for allegedly demanding and receiving a bribe of Rs.500/-. The trial court convicted the appellant in C.C.No.8 of 2007 dated 18.06.2010. Subsequently, the appellant challenged this conviction, contending that the prosecution failed to establish any actual demand and linking the partial recovery to him. The matter reached the present court through this criminal appeal, with the appellant on bail pending its outcome.", "final_status": "allowed", "formatted_summary": "The court allowed the criminal appeal, finding that the prosecution had not established any demand for the alleged bribe. Consequently, the trial court\u2019s conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.", "held": "The court set aside the trial court\u2019s judgment, citing the absence of proof of demand, and acquitted the appellant. This outcome emphasizes the requirement that a clear demand must be established for a conviction involving bribery charges.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the prosecution proved the appellant\u2019s demand for a bribe and whether the partial recovery of money could by itself establish culpability.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": {} } }, "counsels": [ "Sri C.Sharan Reddy (for the Appellant)", "Sri Sridhar Chikyala (Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondent)" ], "delivered_date": "19.06.2024", "facts": "The appellant was employed in the MRO office and was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe from a defacto complainant who had purchased land and required corrections in the revenue records. A trap was set by the ACB on 21.04.2005, allegedly leading to the recovery of marked money from the appellant\u2019s pocket and partial recovery linked to a co-accused. The prosecution maintained that the appellant demanded illegal gratification for processing land-related work, prompting conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act in C.C. No.8 of 2007 dated 18.06.2010. The appellant appealed, arguing that no demand was proven and that the evidence linking the recovered amount to him was insufficient. Some proceedings resulted in the court concluding that the prosecution had not established the essential element of demand, leading to the appellant\u2019s acquittal.", "final_status": "Appeal allowed, the appellant is acquitted.", "first_party": [ "1. Kotla Narsimlu" ], "grouped_statutes": { "Code of Criminal Procedure": [ "v) Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra- 2002(10) SCC 371: The accused is acquitted by taking into consideration his probable explanation under section 313 of Cr.P.C.", "v) Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra- 2002(10) SCC 371: The accused is acquitted by taking into consideration his probable explanation under section 313 of Cr.P.C." ], "Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988": [ "1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under both counts, vide judgment in C.C.No.8 of 2007 dated 18.06.2010 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE \u0026 ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.", "Paragraph 7: Learned Special Judge having framed charges under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, commenced trial. P.Ws.1 to 8 and Exs.P1 to P21 were brought on record on behalf of the prosecution. MOs.1 to 13 were also placed on record. On behalf of the appellant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked.\n\nSub-paragraph (i) from paragraph 11: A three judge bench of the Supreme Court held that proof of demand is sine qua non to prove the offences punishable under Section 7 \u0026 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was held that mere recovery of the bribe amount is not sufficient to prove the above offences. It was also held that proof of acceptance of a bribe can only follow if there is proof of demand. Moreover it was held that the presumption under section 20 of the Act can be drawn only if there is proof of acceptance of demand of bribe.", "iii) P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P (2015(10) SCC 152). A three judge bench of the Supreme Court held that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offences punishable under Section 7 \u0026 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in the absence of the same, the charge would fail. It was also held that mere acceptance and recovery of the illegal gratification would not be sufficient to prove the above charges.\n\nvi) Bansilal Yadav v. State of Bihar -1981(3) SCC 69: The presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be raised when the defence of thrusting is taken by the accused." ] }, "held": "The court concluded that the essential element of demand was not proven. Partial recovery without proof of demand did not suffice to establish guilt. Accordingly, the trial court\u2019s judgment was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, underscoring that a clear demand must be shown for a bribery conviction.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": [ "Whether the appellant\u2019s conviction for demanding and receiving a bribe is sustainable in light of the evidence presented", "Whether there was sufficient proof of demand and acceptance of the alleged bribe", "Whether partial recovery of the alleged bribe could suffice to corroborate the demand against the appellant", "Whether the prosecution proved the appellant\u2019s demand for a bribe and whether partial recovery alone could establish culpability." ], "location": "Hyderabad", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "second_party": [ "1. The State of A.P., rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB, Hyderabad Range" ], "statutes": { "Code of Criminal Procedure": "v) Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra- 2002(10) SCC 371: The accused is acquitted by taking into consideration his probable explanation under section 313 of Cr.P.C.", "Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988": "1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under both counts, vide judgment in C.C.No.8 of 2007 dated 18.06.2010 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE \u0026 ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.\n\nParagraph 7: Learned Special Judge having framed charges under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, commenced trial. P.Ws.1 to 8 and Exs.P1 to P21 were brought on record on behalf of the prosecution. MOs.1 to 13 were also placed on record. On behalf of the appellant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked.\n\nSub-paragraph (i) from paragraph 11: A three judge bench of the Supreme Court held that proof of demand is sine qua non to prove the offences punishable under Section 7 \u0026 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was held that mere recovery of the bribe amount is not sufficient to prove the above offences. It was also held that proof of acceptance of a bribe can only follow if there is proof of demand. Moreover it was held that the presumption under section 20 of the Act can be drawn only if there is proof of acceptance of demand of bribe.\n\niii) P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P (2015(10) SCC 152). A three judge bench of the Supreme Court held that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offences punishable under Section 7 \u0026 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in the absence of the same, the charge would fail. It was also held that mere acceptance and recovery of the illegal gratification would not be sufficient to prove the above charges.\n\nvi) Bansilal Yadav v. State of Bihar -1981(3) SCC 69: The presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be raised when the defence of thrusting is taken by the accused." }, "statutes_headnotes": { "Code of Criminal Procedure": "\u2014 Acquittal of Accused \u2014 Section 313 Cr.P.C. explanation considered \u2014 Demand for bribe not proved \u2014 Partial recovery of marked currency insufficient in absence of clear demand \u2014 Conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act unsustainable \u2014 Trial Court\u2019s judgment set aside \u2014 Accused acquitted.", "Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988": "\u2014 Offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) \u2014 Demand of bribe, a sine qua non \u2014 Mere recovery or possession of bribe money, held, not sufficient \u2014 Presumption under Section 20 arises only on proof of acceptance following a proven demand \u2014 Defence of forced acceptance (thrusting) negates such presumption \u2014 Trial court\u2019s conviction set aside for want of proof of demand \u2014 Appellant acquitted." } }, "summary": { "formatted_summary": "The appellant was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe from a land purchaser requiring corrections in revenue records. A trap was conducted, resulting in partial recovery of marked currency from the appellant and a co-accused, though the co-accused was eventually acquitted. The trial court convicted the appellant, but on appeal the essential element of demand was deemed unproven, and the appellant was ultimately acquitted." } }