Back
V. R. K. KRUPA SAGAR
Tarala Vijaya Babu – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.
1. This appeal by the accused under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is against the conviction recorded against him by the learned trial court. During the relevant period, he was a Work Inspector, Grade II in the office of Executive Director, A.P Housing Board Division Office, Visakhapatnam. On the prosecution initiated by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam Range, he was charged for the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as Act, 1988). Section 7 is about a public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. Section 13 is about criminal misconduct by a public servant. Section 13(1)(d) provides that a public servant is said to commit an offence of criminal misconduct if he by corrupt or illegal means obtains for himself any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Section 13(2) provides the punishment for criminal misconduct. The learned Special Judge for ACB cases - Cum - III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam duly tried the case as per C.C.No.7 of 2004 and by a judgm
The court affirmed that a valid sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires the sanctioning authority to apply its mind to the facts of the case.
Conviction for corruption requires clear proof of bribery demand and acceptance; mere acceptance without evidence of demand is insufficient under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribes is essential for conviction under corruption laws, and procedural irregularities in sanction do not invalidate proceedings unless they cause failure of justic....
A valid sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, and any failure to do so renders the sanction invalid.
The demand of illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must establish foundational facts and valid sanction for prosecution.
Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; trivial amounts may not negate liability if corrupt intent is established.
The challenge to the order of sanction on the ground of improper application of mind or non-consideration of relevant material is required to be raised during trial and established by leading evidenc....
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
