9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has turned hostile and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand. In short there is no proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. The possession is also admitted by the accused. It is settled law that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence Under Section 7, since demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non to constitute the said offence. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence Under Section 13(1)(d) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification the use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for each of the offences and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the Appellant-accused was, at the relevant point of time working as Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The complainant PW-1 K. Sudhakar Reddy had a Fair Price Shop at Narsimha Reddy Nagar Kurnool. It is alleged by the complainant that the Appellant-accused used to collect Rs. 50/- per month from each fair price shop dealer in Kurnool as monthly mamool and when he visited the shop of the complainant on 17.9.1993 he demanded Rs. 300/- towards the monthly mamools from April 1993 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 to 4 and marked Exh. D1 to D8 on his side. The plea of the accused was that target was fixed by the Department to collect contribution for purchase of National Savings Certificate and the amount that was given by the complainant was towards that only. 5. We heard Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. A. Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State. The complainant K. Sudhakar Reddy was examined as PW-1 and he did not support the prosecution case. He has testified that Exh. P-1 complaint is in his hand writing but the contents are not true and he wrote the same as dictated by the ACB officials and he gave the amount of Rs. 300 to the accused with a request to purchase National S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. The possession is also admitted by the accused. It is settled law that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence Under Section 7, since demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non to constitute the said offence. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence Under Section 13(1)(d) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. It is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
