C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
V. Ravindrudu – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. , Rep. By Inspector Of Police, ACB, ANTP. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.27 of 2001 by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. Originally, the accused officer, who was working as Work Inspector in Singanamala Section of A.P. Housing Corporation, was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Vide its judgment dated 31st August, 2006, the learned Special Judge convicted the accused officer under both the counts and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under each of the count. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.
3. The substance of the charge against the accused is that on 12.10.2000, the accused, who was working as Work Inspector, demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.500/-as illegal gratification, from P.W.1 for sanctioning the pending bill amount of Rs.4,500/-, spent towards construction of house sanctioned to P.W.6.
4. The facts, as culled out from th
B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh
C.M. Girish Babu v. C.B.I. Cochin
Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi
M.Narasing Rao v. State of A.P. AIR 2001 SC 318
State of A.P. v. Vasu Deva Rao 2004 CrLJ 620
Mukut Bihari and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Satvir Singh v. State of Delhi
Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.)
State of Kerala and Anr. v. C.P. Rao
Sita Ram v. The State of Rajasthan AIR 1975 SC 1432
T.Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2004 CrLJ 884
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.