Hyderabad: Telangana High Court Judge K. Surender sentenced two external assessors accused of demanding bribes to take bribes among the last year students at Osmania Medical College, believing that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the “needs” under the 1988 Corruption Prevention Act.法官正在审判Gurushantappa SS Bandi and Dre and anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand anand and anand anand anand anand。 The trial court earlier convicted the appellant under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and read under section 13(2) of the Corruption Prevention Act and sentenced to strict imprisonment for one and a half years. The allegations stem from a complaint based on a student filed by a student who claimed that the professor demanded Rs 5,000 and Rs 6,000 respectively in exchange for awarding the pass mark in the actual exam. The High Court found serious flaws in the prosecution case. This is a recognized fact that the Practical Exam was completed on May 11, 2002 and scored on the same day. The court noted that once the assessment is completed and the mark is submitted to the chief examiner, the defendant has no right to change or influence the results, thereby eliminating the possibility of “official favor” pending in the event of alleged demand. The High Court also noted that the prosecutor did not confirm or deny the allegations of the main examiner, but was not under scrutiny by the prosecutor. No marking form was generated for the complainant. Furthermore, the High Court noted that the only evidence prosecuting witnesses lacked evidence, and other students who had not examined the exam, did not explain why only the complainant could target such bribery requirements. In the first case of the defendant, despite cash being recovered from under the sheet, he did not have a positive sodium carbonate test on his hands. In the case of the second defendant, while the contaminated money was found in a hanging pants pocket, the court accepted the defense argument that the cash may have been planted. Surender Judiciary relies on various Supreme Court decisions and reiterates that cash without independent demand proof and acceptance of proof is not enough to maintain a conviction in the Corruption Prevention Act. Therefore, the judge allowed the appeal, put aside the judgment of the trial court, acquitted the professor and ordered the release.
HC seeks a position of state concept qualification
The two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, consisting of Judge Sam Koshy and Justice N. Narsing Rao, directed the state to grant relief to the conceptual qualifications before, to apply to another group of graduate teachers (PGTS). The team is handling writs filed by J. Ramakrishna and 100 other PGTs working in schools across the state. The petitioner questioned the State’s action to deprive its nominal qualifications on 14 June 2013, which is comparable to the first phase candidate appointed by the notice issued in February 2012 in February 2012. The petitioner believes that the denial argued that they received arbitration and competition from Illegal unified and 2020 in 2015 and 2020. In addition, the petitioner relies on the latest decision of the High Court and the Supreme Court ruling, which awarded similar teachers from June 14, 2013 and received all results of monetary benefits. After hearing the preliminary submission, the court sought clarification from the government and released the case for further hearing.
HCA’s five-year residence rule strike
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the High Court of Telangana hit the rule chosen by the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) team of the controversial five-year residency rule, calling it illegal, arbitrary, beyond the authority of the office holders that issued it. The court directed the HCA to consider the eligibility of a 22-year-old cricketer without imposing obstacles to residence status. The judge dealt with the writ filed by Rishiket Sisodia, who moved from Uttar Pradesh to Hyderabad in 2017, and has since been consistent in the local leagues and represented Hyderabad in the national championships. Despite his outstanding performance, including more than 1,800 runs in a single HCA season and outstanding performances on national-level U-19 and U-23 teams, he was suddenly deemed ineligible under a new rule released on November 7, 2023, requiring non-local players to prove a five-year slump in Telangana. The HCA attempts to justify the rule by claiming that the rule follows the oversight of cricket supervision and the single-person committee directive. The court reviewed the internal email and ruled that the Oversight Board did not issue any binding directions for the residence standards. Instead, it simply recommends that the HCA follow established procedures. The petitioner’s lawyer emphasized that despite the guidance of the interim order on October 4, 2024 to consider the choice of the petitioner’s choice without residence conditions, the association allowed the player to train, but later removed him without any explanation. The judge said this showed the association and its CEO “a master” and lack of transparency. The judge criticized the HCA for “putting petitioners into a state of uncertainty” and noted that this treatment of players was against fair competition and the spirit of cricket integrity.
2 police challenge rejection of qualifications
Judge Namavarapu Rajeswar Rao of the High Court of Telangana filed a writ plea, challenging the denial of qualifications against the two deputy police officers, with his previous service as a reserve deputy inspector (civil). The judge dealt with writs filed by Balagani Satheesh and Dulam Pavan Kumar, deputy police inspectors from Mahbubabad District and Palakurthy (Jangaon District). The petitioner seeks instructions from opposition authorities to calculate the services he had provided in the reserve deputy inspector (civil) cadre in the qualifications of deputy inspector (civil) cadre. The petitioners believe that despite being later absorbed as a sub-examination (civil) the services they provide as RSIS were excluded in terms of qualifications and promotions, which they claimed were arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated the Constitution. The judge directed the government defense attorney to obtain instructions from the defendant authorities.
