SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 10309

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
MD.GHOUSE MOHIDDIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE REP BY RANGE INSPECTOR -III. – Respondent
CRLA 1325/2006



APHC010030602006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3368]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 1325/2006 Between:

1. MD.GHOUSE MOHIDDIN, S/O. SHAMSHUDDIN, SUB-

TREASURY OFFICER, VISSANNAPET, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT AND

1. STATE REP BY RANGE INSPECTOR III, VIJAYAWADA RANGE, VIJAYAWADA.

...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to represent this Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeal to this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada, in C.C.No.5 of 2002, dated 15th day of September, 2006.

IA NO: 1 OF 2006 (CRLAMP 1654 OF 2006 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence passed by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada, in CC.No.5 of 2002, dated 15.9.2006 and release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal.

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. RAVITEJA PADIRI Counsel for the Respondent:

1. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1325 OF 2006

J U D G M E N T:

The appeal is preferred by the appellant/convict/accused challenging the Judgment dated 15.09.2006 delivered in C.C.No.05 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Vijayawada.

2. The Special Judge recorded the order of conviction for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘the P.C. Act’) against the appellant, sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)

read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they were arraigned before the learned Special Court.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

4. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused is working as Sub-Treasury Officer, Vissannapet at Krishna District. On 06.04.2001 and on 11.04.2001, the accused demanded Sri P.V.Subba Rao (PW-5), Senior Assistant, Government Junior College, Vissannapeta to pay gratification, other than legal remuneration of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) for doing official favour i.e., passing the G.P.F. temporary advance bill of Sri P.V.Subba Rao. In continuation of the said demand, the accused on 12.04.2001 at about 4:00 p.m., again demanded PW-5 to pay the above amount for doing the official favour mentioned above. Accordingly, PW-5 paid the amount to the accused, on 12.04.2001, at about 4:10 p.m., in the Sub-Treasury Office at Vissannapeta. Informed the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) Officials, PW-7 and others, conducted post trap proceedings, seized the tainted amount under the cover of post trap proceedings in the presence of mediators. After conclusion of investigation, PW-8 laid the police report before the Special Court.

5. The accused was charged for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The accused pleaded not guilty for the charge.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

6. The prosecution to prove the charge examined eight witnesses i.e., PWs-1 to 8 respectively and filed Exs.P1 to P12 documents apart from MOs-1 to 7. Exs.X1 to X8 were also marked during the evidence.

7. The accused was exam

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top