Judgments - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
SADHU SARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. DATTARAJ & ORS.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SYED UMAR SAYED ABBAS & ORS
B. VIRUPAKSHAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS
TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM Vs. STATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH)
BHARAMAPPA GOGI Vs. PRAVEEN MURTHY & ORS. ETC.
DEEPAK SURANA AND ORS Vs. STATE OF M.P
The agreements in question were not even recovered from the custody of the appellants and were recovered from the vendors themselves. The agreements being unilateral and not bearing the signatures of the appellants, mere execution of such agreements cannot be considered as a relevant circumstance against the appellants. There is nothing on record to indicate that the consideration mentioned in the agreement could be traced Full Judgment
M/S. V.L.S. FINANCE LTD. Vs. S.P. GUPTA AND ANR
RAM SARAN VARSHNEY & ORS Vs. STATE OF U.P.& ANR
C.B.I.,BANK SECURITIES & FRAUD CELL Vs. RAMESH GELLI & OR
While there can be no manner of doubt that in the Objects and Reasons stated for enactment of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it has been made more than clear that the Act, inter alia, envisages widening of the scope of the definition of public servant, nevertheless, the mere performance of public duties by the holder of any office cannot bring the incumbent Full Judgment
GULZARI LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
NOORAHAMMAD AND ORS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DHARAM PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAM KAILASH @ RAM VILAS
POOJA PAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
This Court in Babubhai (supra) while examining the scope of Section 173(8) of the Code, did recall its observations in Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1, that it is not only the responsibility of the investigating agency but as well as of the courts to ensure, that investigation is fair and does not in any way hamper the Full Judgment