Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
S.K. MAHABOOB [DIED] AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS SPL. PP HYD. FOR ACB. – Respondent
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1266 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
1 This criminal appeal, under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C, is directed against the judgment dated 30.9.2008 passed in C.C.No.10 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department at Hyderabad whereunder the deceased appellants were found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year each and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the said offence.
2 Heard Sri A. Prahlad Reddy learned counsel for the appellant No.1, Sri S.Rajeswar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant No.2 and learned standing counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-ACB.
3 At the threshol
The court established that mere suspicion of misconduct is insufficient for conviction; clear evidence of misappropriation and control over funds is essential.
The judgment establishes the importance of proving foundational facts and providing substantial evidence to support allegations in a corruption case.
Mere procedural irregularities in public office do not constitute criminal misconduct without proof of dishonest intention or misappropriation of funds.
The prosecution must prove the pendency of the official favor as alleged in corruption cases to secure a conviction.
The absence of foundational evidence regarding demand and acceptance of a bribe justifies the acquittal of the accused.
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
Listen Article