TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Andhra Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondent who was convicted by a learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases for offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the `Act'). The respondent was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of ₹ 2,000/- with default stipulation. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The accused was working as Excise Inspector, Jogipet, Medak District and joined in Government service as L.D.C. on 27-12-1962 in the office of Excise Superintendent. Medak District. Later he was promoted as Excise Sub-Inspector on 2-11-1971 and as Excise Inspector on 9-7-198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... afted a panchanama for the proceedings conducted in the house of Sri Burra Narsimhulu and seized a plastic bag of 1 Kg of Chloral Hydrate on 12-6-1989 and registered it as a case in Cr. No:40/88-89 under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act against Burra Narsimhulu and also against the father of the complainant. Further investigation disclosed that the accused after demand and part payment sent up a preliminary report on grave crime part-I showing that accused is not traceable and he showed official favour by not mentioning the name of the father of the earlier demand, the accused demanded and accepted the balance of ₹ 2,000/- as gratification other than legal remuneration on 19-6- 1989 at about 3.40 p.m. from the complainant Joginath Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, when the part of the same is not accepted the remaining part of the case shall also not be accepted. Placing reliance on a decision of this Court in Hari Dev Sharma v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1977 (3) SCC 352) the conviction as recorded was set aside. The High Court found that the prosecution case was that there was demand and an amount of ₹ 2,000/- was paid on 13.6.1989 which has not been proved and with regard to the trap conducted by the prosecution while the accused was receiving ₹ 2,000/- from P.W.1 on 19.6.1989. Even if the trap is proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the prosecution version cannot be upheld in view of the aforesaid decision of this court. 3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecome necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. V. Horton (1951 AC 737 at p.761), Lord Mac Dermot observed: The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge. 7. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
