LAWS(SC)-2000-7-101

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. J SATANARAYANA

Decided On July 19, 2000
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant
V/S
J.SATYANARAYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal against an order of acquittal of the respondent recorded by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 29.1.1993.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that respondent J. Satyanarayana, entered into Government service in 1957 as a IIIrd Grade Clerk. He worked his way up and in March, 1986, after having put in about 29 years of service, was working as Revenue Divisional Officer at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, Andhra Pradesh. A case came to be registered against him by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 20th March, 1986 for being in possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of his income. According to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, the respondent was alleged to be in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of more than rupees seven lakhs. After obtaining sanction to prosecute the respondent for offences under Section 5 (1) (e) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, charge sheet was filed before the learned and Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 29.4.1987. The learned trial judge after recording evidence and hearing parties, vide judgment dated 12th March, 1990 found the respondent guilty and convicted him for offences under Section 5 (1) (e) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50. 000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months. The respondent put his conviction and sentence in issue through a criminal appeal filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. On 29th January, 1993, a learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt and set aside his conviction and sentence. The respondent was consequently acquitted.

(3.) We have perused the judgment of the High Court and also examined the relevant record.