Back
A. V. RAVINDRA BABU
State, Rep. by Insp. of Police ACB, Trgh. SPL. PP Hyd. – Appellant
Versus
V. Venkata Somayajulu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State, being represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (“A.C.B.” in short), Visakhapatnam, challenging the judgment, dated 10.03.2006 in C.C.No.19 of 2000, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam (“Special Judge” for short), where under the learned Special Judge, found the Accused Officer (“A.O” for short) therein not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C. Act” for short) 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 case of the prosecution, in brief, before the Court below, according to the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam, pertaining to Crime No.12/RC-WLR/98 of A.C.B., Visakhapatnam, 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 prosecution must prove the pendency of the official favor as alleged in corruption cases to secure a conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove allegations beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
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....
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.
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
