SHAIK IBRAHIM Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA
LAWS(APH)-2019-3-122
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 28,2019

SHAIK IBRAHIM Appellant
VERSUS
State of Telangana Respondents




JUDGEMENT

B. Siva Sankara Rao, J. - (1.)The revision petitioner is one Shaik Ibrahim, aged about 52 years. The respondent is State of Telangana, through ACB, Hyderabad Range, represented by its Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.
(2.)The revision is maintained against the dismissal order, dated 24.04.2017, in Crl.M.P.No.41 of 2016 in C.C.No.61 of 2014 passed by the First Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was an application seeking to discharge the petitioner/accused from the accusation levelled against him in the final report filed by ACB and taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'PC Act, 1988'), which is the out come of Crime No.18/RCT-H.R/2013 of ACB, Hyderabad Range Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, alleging that the petitioner/accused worked as site Engineer on contract basis in Rajiv Vidya Mission (SSA) in-charge of Pargi Division, Ranga Reddy District, from 13.06.2011 to 24.05.2013 and by virtue of the post held by him falls under the category of 'public servant' defined under Section 2 (c) of the PC Act, 1988. One Ninavath Shanker Naik (L.W.1), according to the Inspector of Police, ACB, lodged a complaint on 22.05.2013, alleging that the petitioner/accused demanded an amount of Rs.20,000/- from him for issuing utilization certificate and the crime registered therefrom and so-called trap laid against the petitioner on 24.05.2013, and arrested while accepting the tainted currency and the shown seized amount therefrom arrested and produced before the judicial custody and later released on bail.
(3.)The ACB officials after investigation, filed charge against the petitioner/accused and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. At the post cognizance stage, after the petitioner/accused appearing and supplying with copies and while hearing before charges, the petitioner/accused filed the present application in Crl.M.P.No.41 of 2016 supra under Section 239 Cr.P.C., to discharge him saying there are no grounds to frame charge.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.