Judgments - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. FATEHKARAN MEHDU
The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and Full Judgment
Mintu Dubey. Vs. Union of India through SP, CBI Jabalpur.
Head Notes : It is the settled position of law that mere recovery of amount is not sufficient to convict a person under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act if the same is not backed by demand and acceptance of bribe as an illegal gratification. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance Full Judgment
VIVEK BATRA Vs. U.O.I & ORS
Having gone through the copy of note-sheets relating to sanction in question placed before us as part of rejoinder affidavit, it is evident that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the competent authority before the sanction was accorded. Our perusal of the said record does not indicate that any decision was taken by the competent authority, at any point of Full Judgment
BALKAR SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS
L. NARAYANA SWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
With this factual background, we advert to the questions of law that arise for consideration: (1) Whether an order directing further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. can be passed in relation to public servant in the absence of valid sanction and contrary to the judgments of this Court in Anil Kumar & Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr.[1] and Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Ors.[2]? (2) Whether a Full Judgment
M/S HCL INFOSYSTEM LTD Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
The question for consideration relates to the jurisdiction of the Special Judge appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the “PC Act”) to try a person other than a public servant if the public servant dies before the commencement of the trial. Further question is whether the Special Judge can try a non PC Act case when his appointment is to try all cases of the Full Judgment
MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB - PC Act
It is a settled principle of law laid down by this Court in a number of decisions that once the demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification knowing it to be the bribe are proved by evidence then conviction must follow under Section 7 of the PC Act against the accused. Indeed, these twin requirements are sine qua non for proving Full Judgment
STATE OF KERALA Vs. P. MUHAMMED NOUSHAD - PC Act
16) It is a settled principle of law that if the view taken by the High Court while reversing the judgment of the Trial Court appears to be just and reasonable and which is supported by cogent reasoning then this Court would not re-appreciate the evidence again especially when the appeal arises out of the order of acquittal. 17) It is only when the Full Judgment
A. SIVAPRAKASH Vs. STATE OF KERALA
Insofar as sub-clause (ii) is concerned, it stipulates that a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he, by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Thus, the ingredients which will be required to be proved are: (1) The public servant has abused his position. (2) By abusing that Full Judgment
V.SEJAPPA Vs. STATE BY POLICE INSP.LOKAYUKTA
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
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
KRISHAN CHANDER Vs. STATE OF DELHI
it is clear that the High Court has recorded the concurrent findings on the charges framed against the Appellant in the impugned judgment and order. It has also failed to re-appreciate the evidence on record properly and consider the law on the relevant aspect of the case. Therefore, the said findings are not only erroneous in law but also suffer from error in law. Hence, the same is Full Judgment
Ramlal Sharma V/s State of Chhattisgarh Through-Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, & Ors.
M/S SHREE BHAGWATI STEEL ROLLING MILLS Vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ANR.
PROF. N.K.GANGULY Vs. CBI NEW DELHI
“....Whether sanction is to be accorded or not, is a matter for the Government to consider. The absolute power to accord or withhold sanction on the Government is irrelevant and foreign to the duty cast on that Court which is the ascertainment of the true nature of the act.” “It is clear that the first part of Section 197(1) provides a special protection, inter Full Judgment
RAM LAKHAN SINGH Vs. STATE GOVT. OF U P
A public servant in a democracy should be a guardian of morals. He is entrusted with higher responsibilities of a public office and they contribute their best for the just and humane society. We feel that for effective functioning of a democracy, the role of Executive is very important. Civil servants and public officials are expected Full Judgment
N.SUNKANNA Vs. STATE OF A.P.
The prosecution has not examined any other witness present at the time when the money was demanded by the accused and also when the money was allegedly handed-over to the accused by the complainant. The complainant himself had disowned his complaint and has turned hostile and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand. In short there is no Full Judgment