Back
A. V. RAVINDRA BABU
State – Appellant
Versus
Doddi Narasimha Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment in C.C.No.10 of 2004, dtd. 19/2/2007, on the file of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada ("Special Judge" for short), by the unsuccessful State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau ("A.C.B." in short), Vijayawada Range, Guntur.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Special Judge for the sake of convenience.
3. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, ACB, Vijayawada Range, Guntur, filed charge sheet pertaining to Crime No.9/ACB-VJA/2002 of ACB, Vijayawada Range, Guntur, alleging the offences under Ss. 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("P.C. Act" for short) against Accused Officer ("A.O." for short).
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as set out in the charge sheet as above, is as follows:
(i) The A.O. was working as Tap Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Guntur, Guntur District from 19/2/1998 to 29/4/2002. He is a public servant within the meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the P.C. Act.
(ii) One Chakka Janardhana Rao, S/o Venkateswarlu (P.W.1) is having a house in Srinivasarapet in
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 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....
Illegal gratification – Mere recovery of tainted amount in absence of any proof of demand and acceptance cannot be taken as sufficient to convict accused.
The prosecution must prove the pendency of the official favor as alleged in corruption cases to secure a conviction.
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
