Back
K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Rakoti Akkala Naidu – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dtd. 4/10/2007 passed in CC No.27 of 2001 by learned Special Judge for ACB Cases-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. In the aforesaid C.C., the appellant/accused officer was tried for the offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). By his judgment, dtd. 4/10/2007, the learned Special Judge found the accused officer guilty of the offences under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500.00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Sec. 7 of the Act. The accused officer was further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1, 000.00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, for the offence under Sec. 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act. Both the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. The tainted amount of Rs.1500.00 was ordered to be forfeited to the State.
2. Ca
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborative evidence to prove charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the significance of the accuse....
Point of law: Proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore....
The prosecution must establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; evidence from witnesses with bad antecedents requires corroboration.
Statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and can be utilised only to corroborate or contradict the witness vis-a-vis statement made in court. In other words, it can be utilised on....
The court upheld that demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act are distinct offences, allowing for separate convictions based on the same facts.
The judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the defense must substantiate its theory by the standard of preponderance ....
Point of law: The essential ingredients to be established to indict a person of an offence under Section 5(I)(d) of the Act are that he should have been a public servant, that he should have used cor....
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....
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
