Back
A. V. RAVINDRA BABU
State Rep. by Inspector of Police – Appellant
Versus
B. Venkateswara Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) is filed by the State, being represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Range-III, Vijayawada through the Standing Counsel for ACB and Special Public prosecutor questioning the judgment in Calendar Case No. 13 of 1999, dated 16.05.2005, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada (for short “the Special Judge”) where under the learned Special Judge found the Accused Officer (AO) not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the PC Act”) and accordingly acquitted him of the charges under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet filed by Range Inspector-III, ACB, Vijayawada in Crime No. 8/ACB-VJA/98, is that the AO viz. Battina Venkateswara Rao, worked as Mandal Praja Parishad Development Officer i.e. Mandal D
Demand and acceptance of bribe by a public servant is a criminal misconduct within the meaning of Section 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
The demand and acceptance of a bribe by a public servant constitutes the essential ingredients of the offenses under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the official favor pending with the accused and the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
The court established that the accused, a public servant, demanded and accepted bribes, violating provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, thus overturning the trial court's acquittal based on....
The judgment established the importance of proving demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant to establish guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the PC Act. It also....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
