[2008] 15 S.C.R. 1106
~
A
S. RAGHU RAMAIAH
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1779 of 2008) ·
B
NOVEMBER 12, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT.PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Judgment/order - Criminal appeal - ·Dismissal of, by
c · cryptic and non-reasoned order - Reference made to the·
evidence without discussing about the merits of the case ;_ ·
Correctness of - Held: Not correct - Criminal appeal should
not be dealt in this way- Thus, order of High Court set aside
- Matter remitted·to High ·Court for fresh consideratipn. -
D Practice and procedure .,.... Prevention of CorruptionAct, 1988.
}-
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1779 of2008.
..
From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.8.2005 of the
E High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad tn
Crimin.al Appeal No. 1922 of ,1999.
Ramesh Chandra Pandey for the Appellant.
R Sundervardan, D. Bharathi Reddy and A Fatima.for the
. ;,.
F Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D~. ARIJITPASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
G 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 No.11/98 by learned V
~
Additional Special Judge (SPE' & ACB Cases).,cum-V-
H
1106
......
S. RAGHU RAMAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
11'07
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
Additional Chie Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
A
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
8
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 c
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
D
~
elaborate discussion had not been made, the High Court has
referred to the evidence and submissions and thereafter found
no merit in the appeal.
. 4. The only conclusion arrived at by the High Court after
referring to the evidence and arguments is as follows:
E
"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
F
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
expre_ssing any opinion on the merits of the case, we set aside
the impugned judgment and remit the matter for a fresh
G
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.
~
N.J.
Appeal allowed.
H
I
___..
Lex