Case: State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. B. Eswaraiah

1. The respondent was convicted under Section 161, IPC and Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The facts have been narrated in the judgments of the High Court and Sessions Court. After going through the judgment of the courts below we are satisfied that the High Court was absolutely wrong in acquitting the accused in the face of independent and disinterested evidence produced by the prosecution in support of its case. The only point taken by Mr. A. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent is that money and ornaments were planted in order to implicate the respondent which was disbelieved by the High Court. The High Court has not disbelieved the evidence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and other panch witnesses. The story of the accused that the money was given to the servant along with ornaments and was recovered from the almirah seems to be too good to be true. It is too much to think that the accused had the evidence shows that the accused pretended that the keys were in the police station. In the circumstances we are satisfied that the accused has failed to prove the defence taken by him and in view of the overwhelming evidence adduced by the prosecution, of PW 1, PW 14 and panch witnesses including Deputy Collector, it was clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was a demand for a bribe and the bribe was received. We are, therefore, unable to support the judgment of the High Court which is in our opinion manifestly unreasonable.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The High Court has not disbelieved the evidence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and other panch witnesses. The story of the accused that the money was given to the servant along with ornaments and was recovered from the almirah seems to be too good to be true. It is too much to think that the accused had the evidence shows that the accused pretended that the keys were in the police station. In the circumstances we are satisfied that the accused has failed to prove the defence taken by him and in view of the overwhelming evidence adduced by the prosecution, of PW 1, PW 14 and panch witnesses including Deputy Collector, it was clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was a demand for a bribe and the bribe was received. We are, therefore, unable to support the judgment of the High Court which is in our opinion manifestlyappears that the case started as far back as 1964, that is to say, 18 years ago and it will really be not proper to send this appellant to jail for a long period at this stage. Nevertheless as the evidence against the respondent has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot, escape punishment.