Judgments - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
The State of Kerala Versus M. Karunakaran Etc.
S.P. VELUMANI VERSUS ARAPPOR IYAKKAM AND ORS.
J.Sekar @Sekar Reddy Versus Directorate of Enforcement
EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED & ORS. VERSUS RABINDRA KUMAR BHARTI
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS MAJOR R. METRI NO. 08585N
KALYAN DOMBIVALI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VERSUS SANJAY GAJANAN GHARAT AND ANOTHER
The State of Karnataka & Anr Versus Umesh
Deepali Jadhav Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
K. SHANTHAMMA v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA
DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LTD. Versus ANTRIX CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.
N. Raghavender VERSUS State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI
STATE OF ODISHA Versus PRATIMA MOHANTY ETC.
THE STATE BY S.P. THROUGH THE SPE CBI VERSUS UTTAMCHAND BOHRA
RAJ KUMAR INSPECTOR, NCB NEW DELHI VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Birendra Kumar Vs. The State Of Bihar and Ors.
Arun Kumar Dey v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh through Special Police Establishment
Law laid down - 1. Section 311 of the Cr.P.C – The Section is in two parts. In the first part, the word “may” is employed whereas second part uses “shall”. Thus, first part gives pure discretion to the criminal court whereas second part makes it mandatory to summon the witness. Second part of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C - The litmus test to exercise power under the second part aforesaid is whether it is essential to the just decision of a Full Judgment
MANDEEP KAUR DHILLON & ANR VERSUS CBI/BS AND FC/NEW DELHI
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Anr. Versus Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T. H. Vijayalakshmi and Anr.
Dhirendra Kumar Dubey Vs. The State of M.P. & Others
Rajendra Kumar Gautam Vs. State of MP
Law laid down - 1. Departmental inquiry and FIR/Criminal case based on same facts/incident – In every case, it cannot be said as a rule of thumb that exoneration in departmental enquiry on merits must result into setting aside of FIR. If it is found on merits that there is no contravention of the provision of the Act in the departmental inquiry, the continuance of trial of person concerned can be treated as an abuse of the process of the Court. 2. Full Judgment