S. Raghu Ramaiah Vs.
State of A.P.  INSC 1938 (12 November 2008)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1779 OF 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.4885 of 2006) S. Raghu Ramaiah ....Appellant
Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh ....Respondent
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
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 CCNo.11/98 by learned V Additional
Special Judge (SPE & ACB Cases)-cum- V-Additional Chie Judge, City Civil
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.
only conclusion arrived at by the High Court after referring to the evidence
and arguments is as follows:
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."
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
appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
...........................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)