Judgments - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
MRS. NEERAJ DUTTA VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
SHIV SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR
C.B.I. New Delhi VERSUS B.B. Agarwal & Ors. etc.
Suresh Singh Bhadoria Versus Central Bureau of Investigtion
Law laid down - In terms of Section 170(1) of CrPC, the investigating agency is mandated to produce an accused into custody for the non-bailable offence. The argument that the Court should have issued summons in respect of such offence, cannot be accepted. Inherent power of judicial review under Section 482 of CrPC presupposes that the Court is required to see whether the trial Court has abused the process of law or it is necessary to annul the proceedings for securing the Full Judgment
STATE OF MIZORAM VERSUS DR. C. SANGNGHINA
RAM LAL VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Manoj Shrivastava vs. State of MP & Anr.
THE STATE OF GUJARAT Versus NAVINBHAI CHANDRAKANT JOSHI ETC
State by Lokayuktha Police Versus H. Srinivas
ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PVT. LTD. & ANR. VERSUS CENTRAL BURUEAU OF INVESTIVATION
MANJU SURANA Versus SUNIL ARORA & ORS
Anil Kumar and Another vs. State of MP and Another
R. S. Ashatkar Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal
Kuldeep Singh Tomar vs. State of M.P.
PANKAJ JAIN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Radheshyam Soni Vs. State of M. P.
Law Laid Down - Scope under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Full Judgment
S.N. Vijaywargiya Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Law Laid Down - In terms of Section 170(1) of the CrPC, the Investigating Agency is mandated to produce an accused in custody for the non-bailable offence. The argument that the Court should have issued summons in respect of such offence stands rejected. An order dated 20.10.2016 of a Single Bench of this Court in MCRC No.17501/2016 (Rajendra Kori vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) - is overruled. Accused has no right to insist upon investigation by a particular agency – whether State Full Judgment
N.M. Shrivastava Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Law Laid Down - Criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are not for violating the orders passed by the Supreme Court but as a factor to determine conspiracy in scheduling the second counselling for the extended period and permitting the candidates to be admitted on the last date. Thus, fixing of schedule by the petitioners cannot be an honest and bona fide exercise of administrative action but it is shaded with suspicion as it was not modified even when their attention Full Judgment