Back
A. V. RAVINDRA BABU
State of A. P. – Appellant
Versus
Kodali Nageswara Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This is a Criminal Appeal filed by the State, being represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajahmundry Range, Rajahmundry, challenging the judgment, dated 18.04.2007 in C.C.No.67 of 2000, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, whereunder the learned Special Judge, found the Accused Officer (“A.O” for short) therein not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and acquitted him under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short).
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The State i.e., Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajahmundry Range, filed a charge sheet against the A.O in Crime No.3/RC-RJY/1999 of A.C.B., Rajahmundry Range, alleging in substance is as follows :
The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act) can only be drawn if the prosecution proves the foundational facts, such as demand and acceptance of bribe. In the abse....
The judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and minor contradictions in evidence ma....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the need for consistent and reliable evidence in corruption cases.
The prosecution must prove the pendency of the official favor as alleged in corruption cases to secure a conviction.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for foundational facts to prove demand and acceptance of bribe, and the benefit of presumption under Sec. 20 of the P.C. Act.
Demand and acceptance of bribe are essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted amount in the abse....
Illegal gratification – Mere recovery of tainted amount in absence of any proof of demand and acceptance cannot be taken as sufficient to convict accused.
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
