C.M. SHARMA versus STATE OF A.P. TH. I.P.

C.M. SHARMA versus STATE OF A.P. TH. I.P.

There is satisfactory evidence establishing demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant, as corroborated materially by the contractor and shadow witness. The legal requirements of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are met, justifying the conviction. A...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: C.M. Sharma; Respondent: State of A.P. Th. I.P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Prevention of Corruption Act, Illegal Gratification, Evidence Law, Accomplice Corroboration
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Prevention of Corruption Act Illegal Gratification Evidence Law Accomplice Corroboration

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.M. Sharma

Appellant

State of A.P. Th. I.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is justified based on evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification?
  2. 2 Whether corroboration of the contractor's testimony is necessary and present?

Ratio Decidendi

There is satisfactory evidence establishing demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant, as corroborated materially by the contractor and shadow witness. The legal requirements of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are met, justifying the conviction. A contractor who pays an amount under extortion is not an accomplice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 affirmed.
  • Appellant's bail bonds cancelled and directed to surrender to serve out remainder of sentence.