Back
G. RADHA RANI
G. Ramulu – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G. RADHA RANI, J.
1. As these appeals are arising out of the common judgment in C.C. No. 3 of 2009 dated 20.08.2013 convicting both accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C. Act’) they are disposed together by this common judgment.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 750 of 2013 is filed by the appellant/accused No. 1 aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by the III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad in C.C. No. 3 of 2009 dated 20.08.2013 in convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the charge under Section 7 of P.C. Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the charge under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act and wherein both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
3. Criminal Appeal No. 702 of 2013 is filed by the accused No. 2 aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by the III Additional Special Judg
Point of law: Proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore....
The court affirmed that a valid sanction and credible evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes are essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court upheld that demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act are distinct offences, allowing for separate convictions based on the same facts.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient without establishing these elements.
The prosecution must prove the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification, and once these foundational facts are proved, there is a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Co....
The judgment establishes the high standard of proof required to establish the offence of illegal gratification by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, emphasizing the need t....
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
