LAW FOR ALL

Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - High court acquitted the accused under sec.7 but convicted under sec.3(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act - complainant not supported the case of prosecution - no evidence - evidence of I.O. and Ex. P 1 marked complaint can be considered as proof of evidence - mere possession of amount can be considered as demand of bribe - Apex court held that When PW1 Ramesh himself had disowned what he has stated in his initial complaint in Exh.P1 before PW4 Inspector Santosh Kumar and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW3 Kumaraswamy and the contents of Exh.P1 complaint cannot be relied upon to conclude that the said material furnishes proof of demand allegedly made by the accused. The High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are liable to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. Bail bond, if any furnished by the appellant, be released.=CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1578 OF 2011 M.R. Purushotham … Appellant versus State of Karnataka … Respondent = 2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41953