In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must independently prove the ‘Pendency of Official Favour,’ without relying on external support: AP High Court

Case: State, rep. by Inspector of Police v. E. Venkateswara Rao, Formerly Sr. Assistant,

Coram: Justice A.V. Rabindra Babu

Case No.: CrlA: 622 of 2007

Court Observation: “However, the prosecution shall prove the case at its own feet. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is not at all convincing. The learned Special Judge rightly disbelieved the case of the prosecution. The learned Special Judge considered the evidence of P.W.4 to negative the case of the prosecution.”

“In the light of the above, I do not find any tenable reasons to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. The learned Special Judge on thorough appreciation of the evidence on record extended an order of acquittal. As it is an appeal against an order acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot interfere unless the judgment with unreasonable findings. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.”

Previous Posts

AP High Court overturns a troubling conviction under the NDPS Act, stating that it was unfair to place the burden on the accused to prove they did not own the cultivated land

High Court Grants Bail to Two Individuals, While One Faces Denial in Rahul Solanki Murder Case Related to Delhi Riots

Delhi High Court Clarifies that Contempt for ‘Wilful’ Disobedience Excludes Casual or Bona Fide Acts and Does Not Encompass Negligent Actions

Mandatory Notice Under Municipalities Act Waived in Title Declaration and Permanent Injunction Suit Against Town Municipal Council: Karnataka High Court

If there’s a delay in carrying out a detention order without a clear explanation, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court suggests it casts doubt on whether the detaining authority was genuinely satisfied

Keywords

In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act