S. Raghu Ramaiah vs State Of A.P

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

1 No.11/98 by learned V Additional Special Judge (SPE & ACB Cases)-cum-

V-Additional Chie 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.

2

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.

...........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

3 ...........................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi:

November 12, 2008

4