Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
E.V.VENUGOPAL
Huliyurudurga Nanjappa Suresh S/o Late H. Ninjappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and factual background (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by the petitioner and respondent (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis on the investigation and evidence (Para 6) |
| 4. key legal principles concerning investigation authority (Para 7) |
| 5. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
1. The present criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the order dated 12.01.2022 in Crl.MP No.266 of 2020 in CC No.5 of 2012 passed by the learned III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad wherein the prayer of the petitioner under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., seeking to discharge him from the offences punishable under Sections 120 -B read with Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read with (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was rejected.
2. Heard Sri KRKV Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/CBI.
3. The brief averments of the case of the prosecution against the petitioner herein are that the petitioner while working as a Professor at the Military College of Electronics and Mechanical Engineering (MCEME), was implicated
Investigation and charges deemed void due to lack of lawful authority and failure to adhere to procedural safeguards, making subsequent proceedings untenable.
State consent under DSPE Act prior to FIR registration validates CBI investigation despite earlier preliminary verification; no quashing of proceedings post charge-sheet and cognizance absent miscarr....
The absence of evidence proving demand for illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act led to the quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
The court ruled that charges framed against an accused must have sufficient evidence of demand and acceptance to uphold prosecutorial validity; otherwise, it constitutes an infringement of fundamenta....
Illegal gratification - Discharge - Discharge under Section 239 of Code can be ordered when "the Magistrate considers the charge against accused to be groundless
Point of Law : When the allegations against an accused do not constitute an offence, even if such allegations are presumed to be true, a Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code to....
The court held that prior approval for investigation under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is unnecessary in cases involving direct allegations of corrupt conduct by public officials.
Sanction for prosecution under section 196A is essential for conspiracy charges against military personnel, and failure to comply invalidates such charges.
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
