In Brief
A Taluk Supply Officer accused of demanding and accepting a ₹500 bribe from an Authorized Ration Dealer was convicted at trial but acquitted by the High Court. The Supreme Court reversed the acquittal, holding that a bribe demand can be proved through creditworthy portions of a hostile witness's testimony, corroborated by independent evidence. Though the complainant prevaricated at trial, his initial complaint before vigilance officers—confirmed before independent witnesses and later affirmed in court—combined with the officer's recovery of marked currency and false explanation established guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court restored the conviction and two-year sentence.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.