Judgments - PC Act
ASHOK SIRPAUL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
The whole question hinges around whether dismissing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner will cause grave injustice/prejudice to him? The answer is YES. However, looking into the above facts and circumstances, to avoid serious prejudice going to be caused qua against the petitioner, as the witnesses, i.e. PW1, PW13 and PW15, are the material witnesses and they have not been able to cross-examined by the petitioner due the circumstances discussed above. The right to cross-examination which Full Judgment
SIBNATH Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
RAJESH SARDA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
STATE OF MAH. THR. POLICE INSPECTOR, ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, CHANDRAPUR Vs PRABHAKAR S/O VISTARI UDDARWAR
PRAKASHKUMAR S/O MURLIDHAR BHISIKAR Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. POLICE STATION
FAKIRA S/O MADGU KANNAKE Vs STATE OF MAH. THRU. PSO MULCHERA
STATE OF MAHA Vs MOHAN MADHUSUDAN DASKHEDKAR
STATE OF JHARKHAND THR.S.P.,CBI,RANCHI Vs. SAJAL CHAKRABORTY
39. The modus operandi being the same would not make it a single offence when the offences are separate. Commission of offence pursuant to a conspiracy has to be punished. If conspiracy is furthered into several distinct offences there have to be separate trials. There may be a situation where in furtherance of general conspiracy, Full Judgment
RAVI SO. RAJU BHALERAO Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
SHRI RANJIT KUMAR SAHA & ANR VS THE UNION OF INDIA & 7 ORS
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR Vs. AMIT KUMAR @ BACHCHA RAI
PRADEEP S/O TRIMBAKRAO KALE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
RAM KISHAN FAUJI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
“The expression "civil proceeding" is not defined in the Constitution, nor in the General Clauses Act. The expression in our judgment covers all proceedings in which a party asserts the existence of a civil right conferred by the civil law or by statute, and claims relief for breach thereof.” “A criminal proceeding on the other hand is ordinarily Full Judgment
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. FATEHKARAN MEHDU
The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and Full Judgment
Mintu Dubey. Vs. Union of India through SP, CBI Jabalpur.
Head Notes : It is the settled position of law that mere recovery of amount is not sufficient to convict a person under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act if the same is not backed by demand and acceptance of bribe as an illegal gratification. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance Full Judgment
VIVEK BATRA Vs. U.O.I & ORS
Having gone through the copy of note-sheets relating to sanction in question placed before us as part of rejoinder affidavit, it is evident that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the competent authority before the sanction was accorded. Our perusal of the said record does not indicate that any decision was taken by the competent authority, at any point of Full Judgment
L. NARAYANA SWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
With this factual background, we advert to the questions of law that arise for consideration: (1) Whether an order directing further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. can be passed in relation to public servant in the absence of valid sanction and contrary to the judgments of this Court in Anil Kumar & Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr.[1] and Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Ors.[2]? (2) Whether a Full Judgment
M/S HCL INFOSYSTEM LTD Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
The question for consideration relates to the jurisdiction of the Special Judge appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the “PC Act”) to try a person other than a public servant if the public servant dies before the commencement of the trial. Further question is whether the Special Judge can try a non PC Act case when his appointment is to try all cases of the Full Judgment
MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB - PC Act
It is a settled principle of law laid down by this Court in a number of decisions that once the demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification knowing it to be the bribe are proved by evidence then conviction must follow under Section 7 of the PC Act against the accused. Indeed, these twin requirements are sine qua non for proving Full Judgment
STATE OF KERALA Vs. P. MUHAMMED NOUSHAD - PC Act
16) It is a settled principle of law that if the view taken by the High Court while reversing the judgment of the Trial Court appears to be just and reasonable and which is supported by cogent reasoning then this Court would not re-appreciate the evidence again especially when the appeal arises out of the order of acquittal. 17) It is only when the Full Judgment