S. SHANKAR Vs. STATE ACB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the validity and the legality of the judgment that is rendered by the Court of Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.8 of 2002, dtd. 28/3/2007. the appellant who is the accused in the said Calendar Case is before this Court by way of appeal.

(2.) In the grounds of appeal, it is urged that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law and weight of evidence; that the learned judge of the trial Court ought to have seen that DSP, ACB, acted against the appellant-accused without any complaint and without conducting any preliminary enquiry; that the learned judge ought to have observed the discrepancy in the date mentioned in Ex.P-4- complaint; that the learned judge failed to see that Exs.P-1 to P-3- applications were not ready by the time of the alleged meetings dtd. 18/9/2000 and 20/9/2000; that the learned judge failed to see that the appellant-accused is not a competent authority to act on Exs.P-1 to P-3 and issue valuation certificates which were sought by P.W-1; that the learned judge failed to suspect the genuineness of Exs.P-1 to P-3 which were not found during the pre-trap proceedings; that the learned judge failed to appreciate the fact that P.Ws.3 and 4, who are the mediators, deposed to the effect that they found the amount on the table and not in his hands of the appellant-accused; that the learned judge failed to appreciate the fact that the tainted amount was not recovered by P.W-10 from the hands of the appellant-accused; and that the learned judge failed to consider that the entire post-trap proceedings were drafted to the dictation of P.W-10 and that Ex.P-4- complaint was obtained during the course of said proceedings and in spite of absence of any evidence either regarding demand or acceptance of bribe, the learned judge raised presumption under Sec. 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is improper and therefore, the punishment awarded to the appellantaccused by the trial Court is unsustainable.

(3.) Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellantaccused and the submissions of the learned Special Public Prosecutor who represented the respondent.