Judgments - PC Act
C SUKUMARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA
It has been continuously held by this Court in a catena of cases after interpretation of the provisions of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act that the demand of illegal gratification by the accused is the sine qua non for constituting an offence under the provisions of the Act. In the present case, as has been rightly held by the High Court, there Full Judgment
SANJAYSINH RAMRAO CHAVAN Vs. DATTATRAY GULABRAO PHALKE & ANR
Whether the High Court is within its jurisdiction to direct the investigating officer to make a request for sanction for prosecution from the competent authority? Cognizance is taken prior to commencement of criminal proceedings. Taking of cognizance is thus a sine qua non or condition precedent for holding a valid trial. Cognizance is taken of an offence and not Full Judgment
SUDERSHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.
S.DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE TR.INSPECTOR & ANR
Non-Reportable Full Judgment
VINAYAK NARAYAN DEOSTHALI Vs. C.B.I.
ANTONY CARDOZA Vs. STATE OF KERALA
B. JAYARAJ Vs STATE OF A.P.
7. In so far as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand Full Judgment
P.L.Tatwal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
The competent authority to give previous sanction is the authority competent to remove one from service. No doubt the appointing authority is the authority competent to remove him from service. The Statute is very clear that the authority competent to remove an officer from service is the authority to give sanction for prosecution. Full Judgment
State through CBI New Delhi Vs Jitender Kumar Singh
The Special Judge appointed under Section 3(1) could exercise the powers under sub-section (3) to Section 4 to try non-PC offence. Therefore, trying a case by a Special Judge under Section 3(1) is a sine-qua-non for exercising jurisdiction by the Special Judge for trying any offence, other than an offence specified in Section 3. “Trying any case” under Section 3(1) is, therefore, a jurisdictional fact for the Special Judge Full Judgment
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY @ ORS
MANISH TRIVEDI VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Y.K. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
N.V. Subba Rao Vs. State, through Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE, Visakhapatnam, A.P.
Bangaru Laxman Versus State (through CBI) & another
DINESH KUMAR Versus CHAIRMAN, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
STATE OF KERALA & ANR.Vs C.P. RAO
when there was no corroboration of testimony of the complainant regarding the demand of bribe by the accused, it has to be accepted that the version of the complainant is not corroborated and, therefore, the evidence of the complainant cannot be relied on. mere recovery of tainted money, divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid, is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself cannot prove Full Judgment
C.M. SHARMA Vs STATE OF A.P.
“26. Therefore, the very foundation of the prosecution case is shaken to a great extent. The question as to the handing over of any bribe and recovery of the same from the accused should be considered along with other material circumstances one of which is the question whether any demand was at all made by the appellant for the bribe. When it is found that no such demand was made by the accused and the prosecution has given a false story Full Judgment
Banarsi Dass Vs State of Haryana
It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that the conviction of an accused cannot be founded on the basis of inference. The offence should be proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or even by circumstantial evidence if each link of the chain of events is established pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has to lead cogent evidence in that regard. So far as it satisfies the essentials of a complete chain Full Judgment
C.M. Girish Babu Vs CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala
The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. that it is not enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public servant to make it acceptance of gratification and prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid amounted to gratification, 19. It is well settled Full Judgment