Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.44 seconds)

Between: vs G.Laxminarayana Murthy on 28 December, 2012

13. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention that the learned trial Court erred in drawing presumption under Section 20 of the Act against the appellant relied on the following judgments. (1) M.ABBAS v STATE OF KERALA1. In this case before the Supreme Court the plea of the accused was that the amount was received by him not as a bribe, but for making the payment to another contractor who had completed the work entrusted to him. PW.2, who was declared hostile, supported the plea of the accused. No other witness was examined to prove the demand or acceptance of bribe by the accused. The Supreme Court held that the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act can be said to be rebutted and the accused is entitled for acquittal.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R K Rao - Full Document

D.Bapu Rao vs And on 6 February, 2013

11. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision reported in M.ABBAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA1 wherein the Supreme Court held that the explanation offered by the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to the effect that he had not received the amount as a bribe, but for the purpose of giving the same to another Contractor can be taken into consideration. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the instant case, there was spontaneous explanation from the appellant, which was recorded in the post-trap panchanama, that he received the amount not as a bribe but as a loan advanced by P.W.2 and sent it through P.W.1 can be accepted in view of the inconsistency in the versions of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also in view of the admission of P.W.2 in the cross examination that he sent the amount of Rs.1,500/- through P.W.1 to be given to the appellant as loan, which he asked for earlier.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R K Rao - Full Document
1