Back
A. V. RAVINDRA BABU
State of A. P. – Appellant
Versus
Y. Hanumantha Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State, being represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (“A.C.B.” for short), Guntur, challenging the judgment, dated 24.07.2006 in C.C.No.16 of 2001, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada (“Special Judge” for short), where under the learned Special Judge, found the Accused Officer (“A.O” for short) therein not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C. Act” for short) and acquitted him under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short).
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The State represented by A.C.B., Guntur, filed a charge sheet in Crime No.9/ACB-VJA/2000 of Guntur District under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, alleging in substance as follows:—
(i) The A.O. worked as Station Fire Officer, Mangalagiri of Guntur District from 07.07.1997 to 07.08.2000, as such, he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of P.C. Act.
(ii) On 21.05.2000 when L.W.1-B. Ramesh Reddy was
Illegal gratification – Mere recovery of tainted amount in absence of any proof of demand and acceptance cannot be taken as sufficient to convict accused.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove allegations beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
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 presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can only be drawn if the prosecution proves the foundational facts regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe.
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....
The prosecution must prove the pendency of the official favor as alleged in corruption cases to secure a conviction.
The prosecution must establish foundational facts to benefit from the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. Insufficient evidence and hostile witnesses can weaken the case against the accused....
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
