Judgments - Corruption
Sita Soren Versus Union of India
ANOOP BARTARIA VERSUS DY. DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
NEERAJ DUTTA VS. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI)
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT versus PADMANABHAN KISHORE
STATE BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VERSUS R. SOUNDIRARASU ETC.
Vimla Devi Shrivastava W/O Late Haripd Versus The State Of M.P.
SHIV KUMAR SHARMA VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN
S.K. TONGIA VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
JARNAIL SINGH & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB
S.P. VELUMANI VERSUS ARAPPOR IYAKKAM AND ORS.
K. SHANTHAMMA v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA
State of M.P. and others Vs. Ku. Preeti Patidar and others
Law laid down - S.89 and 92 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993: An amount cannot be directly recovered under Section 92 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam unless the same is determined under Section 89 of the same. This is for the reason that without determining the amount, if the notice under Section 92 is served on a person, the amount cannot be said to be due on the date of its recovery because Full Judgment
THE STATE BY S.P. THROUGH THE SPE CBI VERSUS UTTAMCHAND BOHRA
RAJ KUMAR INSPECTOR, NCB NEW DELHI VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
The State of Jammu & Kashmir and others Versus Dr. Saleem Ur Rehman
Sabit Khan Vs. State of M.P. and others
Law laid down - 1. Section 19 of the PC Act requires previous sanction for prosecution. Sub section (3) thereof puts a rider that absence of or any error, irregularities etc. in sanction will not be a ground to reverse a finding or sentence unless in the opinion of the Court failure of justice has infact occasioned thereby. Sub section (4) thereof relates to raising an objection in this regard at an early stage in the proceedings. 2. The Act of granting Full Judgment