Back
A. V. RAVINDRA BABU
Nandipati Lakshman Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of criminal appeal and charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. procedural background of the case (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. decision timeline and appeals (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. validating public servant status and sanction (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. evidence of pendency of official favour (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. testimonies of key witnesses and their credibility (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. examination of demand and acceptance of bribe (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 8. establishing charge and legal presumptions (Para 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 9. outcome and final directives (Para 54 , 55 , 56) |
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’), is filed by the appellant, who was the Accused Officer (AO) in Calendar Case No.7 of 2001, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada, (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’) challenging the judgment therein, dated 17.11.2006, whereunder the learned Special Judge found the AO 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’), accordingly convicted him under Section
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 prosecution can prove a valid sanction either by producing the original sanction, which contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction or by adducing evidence alinude....
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....
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
