Back
C.K.PRASAD, G.S.SINGHVI
Billa Nagul Sharief – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
No, this is not a case where the corruption charges were dealt solely with circumstantial evidence. (!) [23000449500005][23000449500007][23000449500010][23000449500013]
The conviction relied on direct evidence, including: - Eyewitness testimony from the de facto complainant (PW.1) detailing the appellant's demand for and acceptance of the bribe money (25 marked ₹100 notes) at the staircase, followed by delivery of the licence.[23000449500004][23000449500005][23000449500007][23000449500010] - Corroboration by trap party witnesses (PW.3, PW.4, PW.5), who observed the pre-trap procedures (phenolphthalein treatment, serial numbers noted), the signal after payment, immediate apprehension, recovery of tainted notes from the appellant's trouser pocket, and positive phenolphthalein tests on his hands (turning pink).[23000449500004][23000449500005][23000449500007] - Office records and PW.2's testimony confirming the licence process and issuance dated 6.1.1997, aligning with the timeline of demand and payment.[23000449500003][23000449500007]
The courts rejected the defense of false implication and alibi, finding the prosecution evidence consistent and credible, with recovery from possession proving acceptance beyond doubt.[23000449500006][23000449500008][23000449500009][23000449500010][23000449500012][23000449500013][23000449500014]
JUDGMENT
C.K. Prasad, J. - The petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.06.2009 passed by learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 378 of 2002, affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, has preferred this petition for grant of special leave to appeal.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant was put on trial for commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). He was found guilty by the trial court by its judgment and order dated 4th April, 2002 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under each count and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months under each count. The aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been upheld by the High Court in appeal.
4. According to the prosecution the appellant-Billa Nagul Sharief at the relevant time was posted as Junior Assistant in the office of the District Supply Officer, Guntur and thus a
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
