Back
A. V. RAVINDRA BABU
State of A. P. – Appellant
Versus
Chevalavarapu Srinivasa Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State, represented by Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada, challenging the judgment, dated 30.11.2006 in C.C.No.22 of 2002, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada (“Special Judge” for short), whereunder the learned Special Judge, found the Accused Officer No.1 (A.O.1) not guilty of the charges under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C. Act” for short) and further found Accused Nos.2 and 3 (A.2 and A.3) not guilty of the charges under Sections 12 and 15 of the P.C. Act and accordingly, acquitted A.O.1, A.2 and A.3 under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and further made an order to prosecute P.W.5 for perjury.
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 State, represented by Inspector of Police, A.C.B., Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada, filed a charge sheet in Crime No.22/ACB-VJA/00, alleging in substance as follows :
The prosecution must establish the pendency of official favor, demand and acceptance of the bribe, and the facilitation of the offense by accomplices to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Co....
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.
The absence of foundational evidence regarding demand and acceptance of a bribe justifies the acquittal of the accused.
The judgment establishes the importance of proving foundational facts and providing substantial evidence to support allegations in a corruption case.
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.
The judgment emphasized the need to establish the demand for bribe or pecuniary advantage as essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It highlighted the foundational facts req....
The prosecution must establish foundational facts to benefit from the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. Insufficient evidence and hostile witnesses can weaken the case against the accused....
The prosecution must prove the pendency of the official favor as alleged in corruption cases to secure a conviction.
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
