Back
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K. SUJANA, J
Moratotha Venkateswara Rao Venkat – Appellant
Versus
The Public Prosecutor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint filed for bribe (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioners argue lack of evidence (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. prosecution claims sufficient evidence (Para 7) |
| 4. no sanction for accused no.1 (Para 8) |
| 5. sufficient evidence against accused no.2 (Para 9) |
| 6. prior sanction requirement (Para 10) |
| 7. criminal petitions dismissed (Para 11) |
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in both the criminal petitions is one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of together by way of this common order.
2. Criminal Petition No.8006 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 and Criminal Petition No.5304 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.79 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and Section 120(b) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).
3. The brief facts of the cases are that respondent No.4 filed a complaint before the ACB officials stating that he submitted an appl
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
