Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K.SURENDER
K.Pullareddy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details of appellant. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 2. appellant's defense and procedural arguments. (Para 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. failure to prove necessary legislative permissions. (Para 35 , 47) |
| 4. elements of forgery and misappropriation outlined. (Para 36 , 41 , 42) |
| 5. outcome and acquittal of appellant. (Para 49) |
JUDGMENT :
K.Surender, J.
This appeal is filed by the appellant/A1 aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the I Addl.Spl.Judge for SPE & ACB Cases- cum-V Addl.Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad, in CC.No.62 of 2007, dt.28.02.2018, for the offences under Sections 13 (1)(c)& (d)(ii) r/w. Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 409 , 420 , 468 and 471 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2 lakhs for the offence under Section 468 of IPC ; to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5 lakhs for the offence under Section 409 of IPC : to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; to undergo rigorous
Convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act require valid sanctions; without them, trials are void as established through insufficient evidence and lack of corroboration for forgery and conspi....
Public servants misappropriating funds and failing to remit them can be convicted under the PC Act and IPC. The absence of documentation does not exempt accountability for the misappropriation.
Public servants are criminally liable for misappropriation of entrusted property through forgery, supported by identification of handwriting, fulfilling requirements of the Prevention of Corruption A....
Public servants must not misuse their position; misappropriation established through evidence confirms legal accountability under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.
The accused was convicted for misappropriating public funds by failing to account for money entrusted to her, establishing criminal breach of trust and corrupt practices under the relevant sections.
The prosecution must prove all the essential elements of an offence beyond a reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction.
Misappropriation by a public servant requires proof of trust, dishonest intent, and encasement of property not belonging to the accused, as upheld in this case.
Misappropriation by a public servant requires proof of entrustment and dishonest intention, both established here, confirming guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.
Conviction for forgery and misappropriation requires clear proof of entrustment and intent to defraud, which was lacking, leading to acquittal.
(1) Misappropriation with dishonest intention is one of the most important ingredients of proof of ‘criminal breach of trust’.(2) Best evidence having been withheld by prosecution, benefit of doubt m....
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
