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
Keywords
In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act
Related Articles
- 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
- S.19 Prevention Of Corruption Act | ‘Failure Of Justice’ Is A Facile Expression, Courts Must Be Circumspect While Determining It: Delhi High Court
- Explosive Substances Act | The Andhra Pradesh High Court overturns a conviction, citing a delay of over 2 years in sending the sample for forensic analysis

