Judgments - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
Krishna Kant Rathod Vs Union of India, through C.B.I.,Jabalpur
It is not proved that appellant had received money from complainant as bribe or illegal gratification. The complainant turned hostile, there was no other witnesses present at the time of transaction between complainant and appellant. The complainant disowned the contents of his complaint. In these set of facts Hon’ble Apex Court has observed “when complainant disowned his own statement the contents of complaint cannot be relied on”.In the present case the complainant in his examination in chief has categorically denied the Full Judgment
Sudhakar Rastogi Vs. State Of U.P.
MUKHTIAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.R. VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB
The indispensability of the proof of demand and illegalgratification in establishing a charge under Sections 7 and 13 of theAct, has by now engaged the attention of this Court on umpteen occasions. In A. Subair vs. State of Kerala, this Court propounded that the prosecution in order to prove the charge under the above provisions has to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification and till that is accomplished, the accused should be considered to Full Judgment
P.N. MOHANAN NAIR Versus STATE OF KERALA
The short question of law for consideration is, if the offences essentially constitute a single transaction, but have been split up by the prosecution into three separate cases, will the sentences imposed individually, run concurrently or consecutively? Suffice it to observe that in the facts of the case, the exercise of discretion under Section 427(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, mandates that the substantive sentences imposed upon the appellant in the three separate prosecutions, are directed to run concurrently,except the default Full Judgment
M.S. BADHAN Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
RAJESH SARDA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
STATE OF MAH. THR. POLICE INSPECTOR, ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, CHANDRAPUR Vs PRABHAKAR S/O VISTARI UDDARWAR
PRAKASHKUMAR S/O MURLIDHAR BHISIKAR Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. POLICE STATION
FAKIRA S/O MADGU KANNAKE Vs STATE OF MAH. THRU. PSO MULCHERA
STATE OF MAHA Vs MOHAN MADHUSUDAN DASKHEDKAR
STATE OF JHARKHAND THR.S.P.,CBI,RANCHI Vs. SAJAL CHAKRABORTY
39. The modus operandi being the same would not make it a single offence when the offences are separate. Commission of offence pursuant to a conspiracy has to be punished. If conspiracy is furthered into several distinct offences there have to be separate trials. There may be a situation where in furtherance of general conspiracy, Full Judgment
RAVI SO. RAJU BHALERAO Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR Vs. AMIT KUMAR @ BACHCHA RAI
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR Vs. AMIT KUMAR @ BACHCHA RAI
PRADEEP S/O TRIMBAKRAO KALE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VINEET KUMAR AND ORS Vs. STATE OF UP & ANR
Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if Full Judgment