Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K.Surender
State Rep. By SPL.P.P. Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
Arvind Kumar Ajmera Secunderabad – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
K. Surender, J.
This appeal is filed by the State-Central Bureau of Investigation, aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW.1- Mr.J.Laxman Rao-the defacto complainant, who is a contractor in the Military Engineer Services (for short ‘MES’) lodged complaint with the SP, CBI, Hyderabad, on 02.12.2000 at about 9.00 A.M, alleging that the accused had demanded Rs.20,000/- as bribe for clearing his final bill of C.A.No.75 and for accepting the tender (file No.8617). An FIR in the above case was registered immediately for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A trap was laid immediately on the same day. The trap party caught the accused when he accepted an amount of
The appellate court cannot reverse an acquittal unless the trial court's findings are clearly based on illegality or incorrect consideration of evidence.
The presumption of innocence of the accused and the requirement for substantial and compelling reasons to reverse an order of acquittal.
An order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence and should not be reversed unless substantial and compelling reasons exist.
The appellate court must respect the trial court's acquittal unless compelling reasons justify interference; two reasonable conclusions cannot disturb the trial court's findings.
In appeals against acquittal, the prosecution must prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in upholding the acquittal.
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
Listen Article