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

2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 184

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K.SURENDER, J
M.Vidyasagar – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent


JUDGEMENT

1. Aggrieved by the conviction by the Special Court for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act vide judgment in C.C.No.22 of 2007 dated

29.03.2011, the present appeal is filed. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1/ defacto complainant was a sub-contractor of electrical works. He took up the said contract work of fixing electrical transformer and electrical meters to the building ‘Aditya Homes’ at Nizamapet, Kukatpally.

The said work was completed in the month of February, 2006. After completing the work, he met the appellant, who was Additional Assistant Engineer, APCPDCL. After inspecting the work, the appellant intimated to the ADE. However, after inspection, the transformer was not charged (not given electric connection). P.W.1 went around the office of P.W.3/ADE, who informed P.W.1 that he had already instructed the appellant to charge the transformer.

However, when P.W.1 met the appellant, demand for Rs.15,000/-was made for charging the transformer. Again on 14.03.2006, P.W.1 met the appellant and the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.8,000/-.Since connection was not given to the transformer and the appellant ins

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top