S. Raghu Ramaiah Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1779 of 2008
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4885 of 2006]
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.8.2005 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1922 of 1999]
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4885 of 2006]
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.8.2005 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1922 of 1999]
Petitioner: S. Raghu Ramaiah
Respondent: The State of Andhra Pradesh
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1779 of 2008
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4885 of 2006]
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.8.2005 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1922 of 1999]
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4885 of 2006]
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.8.2005 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1922 of 1999]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 12, 2008
Appearances:
Mr. Ramesh Chandra Pandey, Advocate (SCLSC), for the Appellant.
Mr. R. Sundervardan, Senior Advocate, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy and Ms. A. Fatima, Advocates with him for the Respondent.
Mr. R. Sundervardan, Senior Advocate, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy and Ms. A. Fatima, Advocates with him for the Respondent.
Head Note:
Criminal Laws
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) – Illegal gratification – Trial Court relying on the evidence of witness found appellant guilty – High Court dismissing appeal. Held High Court did not discuss about the merits of the case. Matter remitted back for fresh consideration.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) – Illegal gratification – Trial Court relying on the evidence of witness found appellant guilty – High Court dismissing appeal. Held High Court did not discuss about the merits of the case. Matter remitted back for fresh consideration.
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing Criminal Appeal No.1922 of 1999 filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 25.11.1999 in CC No.11/98 by learned V Additional Special Judge (SPE and ACB Cases)-cum- V-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
3. The appellant faced trial for offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the `Act’). It was alleged that the appellant while working as a Junior Assistant in the office of Commissioner, Endowments, Ananthapur had received illegal gratification after making a demand from PW-1. The trial Court with reference to the evidence of the witnesses found the appellant guilty. The appellant questioned the conviction by preferring an appeal as noted above. By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the appeal. Apart from the submissions relating to the merits of the case learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after referring to the evidence and submissions, the High Court disposed of the appeal by a cryptic and non-reasoned order. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that though elaborate discussion had not been made, the High Court has referred to the evidence and submissions and thereafter found no merit in the appeal.
4. The only conclusion arrived at by the High Court after referring to the evidence and arguments is as follows:
‘After carefully going through the evidence placed by the prosecution and the judgment of the Court below, I find no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentenced imposed by the Court below.’
5. Out of 14 pages of the judgment as appearing in the paper-book except the ‘quoted above’ there is no discussion about the merits of the case. This certainly is not an appropriate way to deal with a criminal appeal. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. Since the matter is of the year 1999, we request the High Court to explore the possibility of disposing of the appeal within four months from today.
6. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing Criminal Appeal No.1922 of 1999 filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 25.11.1999 in CC No.11/98 by learned V Additional Special Judge (SPE and ACB Cases)-cum- V-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
3. The appellant faced trial for offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the `Act’). It was alleged that the appellant while working as a Junior Assistant in the office of Commissioner, Endowments, Ananthapur had received illegal gratification after making a demand from PW-1. The trial Court with reference to the evidence of the witnesses found the appellant guilty. The appellant questioned the conviction by preferring an appeal as noted above. By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the appeal. Apart from the submissions relating to the merits of the case learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after referring to the evidence and submissions, the High Court disposed of the appeal by a cryptic and non-reasoned order. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that though elaborate discussion had not been made, the High Court has referred to the evidence and submissions and thereafter found no merit in the appeal.
4. The only conclusion arrived at by the High Court after referring to the evidence and arguments is as follows:
‘After carefully going through the evidence placed by the prosecution and the judgment of the Court below, I find no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentenced imposed by the Court below.’
5. Out of 14 pages of the judgment as appearing in the paper-book except the ‘quoted above’ there is no discussion about the merits of the case. This certainly is not an appropriate way to deal with a criminal appeal. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. Since the matter is of the year 1999, we request the High Court to explore the possibility of disposing of the appeal within four months from today.
6. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
