Judgments - PC Act
DEBAJIT BORAH VS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
DATTATRAYA LAXMAN BAGDI Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Shri Dhanraj Punaji Chavan Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors
GIRISH SHARMA & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS
JAGDISH DHANURDHAR KALBAGE Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Rakesh Kumar Paul versus State of Assam
Vasant Rao Guhe VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh
Trial Court on the two major heads of income i.e. pay and agricultural earnings, the learned Trial Court not only of its own embarked on an inquiry to ascertain and compute the figures, it wholly resorted to inferences in calculating the pay for the periods omitted by the prosecution as well as in fixing 60% expenditure from pay towards household needs. Its assessment of agricultural income of the appellant to say the least is also wholly presumptive in absence of Full Judgment
Smt. Shobha Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
It is not in dispute that merely giving help will not make the abetment of offence if the person who gave the help did not know that an offence was being committed or contemplated. The intention should be to help an offence or to facilitate the commission of crime. There is prima facie evidence on record for offence under Section 120-B of IPC of the meeting of minds for acceptance of money between Mahavir Prasad/husband and his wife/petitioner. In the present Full Judgment
State through Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava
Framing of charge is the first major step in a criminal trial where the court is expected to apply its mind to the entire record and documents placed therewith before the court. Taking cognizance of an offence has been stated to necessitate an application of mind by the court but framing of charge is a major event where the court considers the possibility of discharging the accused of the offence with which he is charged or requiring the accused to face trial. There are different categories Full Judgment
SHRI D.N. KADIAN Vs. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
NEERA YADAV Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON
A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that if the elements of any of the three sub-clauses are met, the same would be sufficient to constitute an offence of ‘criminal misconduct’ under Section 13(1)(d). Undoubtedly, all the three wings of clause (d) of Section 13(1) are independent, alternative and disjunctive. Thus, under Section 13(1)(d)(i) obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means by a public servant in itself would amount to criminal misconduct. On Full Judgment
RAJIV KUMAR Versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. It is, therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means Full Judgment
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Versus M. SIVAMANI
While the bar against cognizance of a specified offence is mandatory, the same has to be understood in the context of the purpose for which such a bar is created. The bar is not intended to take away remedy against a crime but only to protect an innocent person against false or frivolous proceedings by a private person. The expression “the public servant or his administrative superior” cannot exclude the High Court. It is clearly implicit in the direction of Full Judgment
Jai Singh Sisodiya & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
PRADIP MITTAL S/O KAUSHAL KISHORE MITTAL Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS
From the ratio laid down in the above judgment, it is clear that the main determinative factor for deciding the place of offence is the place where the offence has actually taken place. It is also observed in the said judgment that when it is certain where exactly the offence under Section 13 of the PC Act is committed, it is an unnecessary exercise to ponder over the other areas wherein certain allied activities such as conspiracy or preparation had Full Judgment
Krishna Kant Rathod Vs Union of India, through C.B.I.,Jabalpur
It is not proved that appellant had received money from complainant as bribe or illegal gratification. The complainant turned hostile, there was no other witnesses present at the time of transaction between complainant and appellant. The complainant disowned the contents of his complaint. In these set of facts Hon’ble Apex Court has observed “when complainant disowned his own statement the contents of complaint cannot be relied on”.In the present case the complainant in his examination in chief has categorically denied the Full Judgment
Sudhakar Rastogi Vs. State Of U.P.
MUKHTIAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.R. VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB
The indispensability of the proof of demand and illegalgratification in establishing a charge under Sections 7 and 13 of theAct, has by now engaged the attention of this Court on umpteen occasions. In A. Subair vs. State of Kerala, this Court propounded that the prosecution in order to prove the charge under the above provisions has to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification and till that is accomplished, the accused should be considered to Full Judgment
P.N. MOHANAN NAIR Versus STATE OF KERALA
The short question of law for consideration is, if the offences essentially constitute a single transaction, but have been split up by the prosecution into three separate cases, will the sentences imposed individually, run concurrently or consecutively? Suffice it to observe that in the facts of the case, the exercise of discretion under Section 427(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, mandates that the substantive sentences imposed upon the appellant in the three separate prosecutions, are directed to run concurrently,except the default Full Judgment