Judgments - Corruption
RANDHIR SINGH Vs C.B.I.
Kiran Chander Asri Vs State of Haryana
P. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Vs THE DIST. INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANR.
In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the imperative pre-requisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B. Jayaraj (supra) in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act. It has been propounded Full Judgment
INDRAVIJAY ALOK Vs. STATE OF M.P.
C.B.I. Vs. MANINDER SINGH
Special Police Establishment Lokayukt Vs Padma Gaud
GURJANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
NANJAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
A plain reading of Section 19(1) (supra) leaves no manner of doubt that the same is couched in mandatory terms and forbids courts from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 against public servants except with the previous sanction of the competent authority enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 19. The provision contained Full Judgment
Manoj Kumar Dwivedi Vs State Of U.P. And Another
CHAITANYA PRAKASH AUDICHYA Vs. CBI
It is further well established that where misconduct is proved, the alleged enmity between the complainant and the delinquent officer is immaterial. (See B. Hanumantha Rao v. State of A.P.[4]). Full Judgment
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. Vs. CHAUDHARI RAN BEER SINGH AND ANR.
Smt. Nandani Ramchandani And Ors. Vs. The State Of U.P And Ors.
Section 3 of PML Act clearly speaks that whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of the crime and projecting it as untainted property shall be guilty of the offences of money laundering. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the person who acquired the proceeds of crime is being helped by anybody directly or indirectly knowingly to convert that Full Judgment
K.L BAKOLIA Vs. STATE TH. DIRECTOR,C.B.I.
For coming to the finding of guilt for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, firstly, there must be a demand and secondly, there must be acceptance in the sense that the accused received illegal gratification. Full Judgment
Dilip Kumar Diwan Vs State of chhattisgarh
SELVI J. JAYALALITHA Vs STATE, BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION SPECIAL INVESTIGATION CELL CHENNAI
STATE OF A.P. Vs. P.VENKATESHWARLU
The demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution is duty bound to establish that there was illegal offer of bribe and acceptance thereof and it has to be founded on facts. The offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act has been confirmed by the Full Judgment