Judgments - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
IMRAN HUSSAIN AND ORS Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
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
Abhay Kumar Bajpai Vs C.B.I.
Mukesh Srivastava Vs C.B.I., S.T.F.
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.
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