REPORTABLE

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

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge 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  CC

1

No.11/98 by learned V Additional Special Judge (SPE & ACB Cases)-cum-

V-Additional Chie Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

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 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.

2

4. The only conclusion arrived at by the High Court after referring to the

evidence and arguments is as follows:

“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  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 from today.

6. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.       

………………….…………………J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

3

………………….…………………J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi: November 12, 2008

4