Back
A. V. RAVINDRA BABU
State Of A. P. – Appellant
Versus
Velugula Krishna Samudram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is made by the State, represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (“A.C.B.” for short), Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada, to the judgment, dated 12.03.2007 in C.C.No.4 of 2004, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada (“Special Judge” for short), whereunder the learned Special Judge found the Accused Officer (“A.O.” for short) not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (“P.C. Act” for short) and acquitted him under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short), but made a finding that P.W.1 appears to have given false evidence and that it is expedient, in the interest of justice, that he be prosecuted for perjury. The learned Special Judge gave appropriate direction to lodge a complaint in Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of First Class against P.W.1 for committing the offences under Sections 193 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) by exercising powers under Section 340 r/w 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.
2) The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the lear
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 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 judgment establishes the importance of proving foundational facts and providing substantial evidence to support allegations in a corruption case.
The prosecution must prove the demands and acceptance of a bribe to establish guilt under 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....
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 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
