Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
HARINATH N.
Orsu Yellamanda Raju S/o Late Malakondaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of alleged bribery and survey irregularities. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments regarding lack of evidence for bribery. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 15) |
| 3. court's observation on the necessity of trial. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. petition dismissed with pending miscellaneous petitions closed. (Para 23) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is seeking quash of CC.No.19 of 2019 on the file of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 and is facing trial for alleged offence under Section 7 , 12, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Sri.B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was entrusted to conduct survey with respect to land in Survey No.298/2, 299 and 300 at Maddaluru Village of Santanuthalapadu Village, Prakasam District. The petitioner was required to conduct survey and fix boundaries of the subject lands.
3. It is alleged that the complainant approached the petitioner on several occasions for conducting survey. It is also alleged that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.21,000/- for conducting survey and on 05.0
For a charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, demand and acceptance of bribe must be established, and quashing cannot occur without a prima facie case being shown, necessitating trial.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt, which was not established in this case.
The absence of a demand does not negate the offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act if evidence of receipt is present.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific and credible evidence to establish the commission of a cognizable offence, especially in cases involving allegations of....
The prosecution must prove the complainant's standing to lodge a corruption complaint, failing which the bribery allegation cannot be substantiated.
The judgment establishes the principle that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are crucial for proving the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, and the necessity of va....
Presumption under PC Act Section 20 from positive phenolphthalein test; quashing FIR not warranted in nascent investigation stage.
Mere recovery of amount from accused officer will not suffice to draw a presumption under Section 20 of Act of 1988 to shift burden on to accused officer.
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
