Judgments - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
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
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
Tanuram Sahu Vs The State Government of Chhattisgarh and another
MANISH TRIVEDI VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs M.K. Aiyappa & Anr.
Sub-section (3) of Section 19 has an object to achieve, which applies in circumstances where a Special Judge has already rendered a finding, sentence or order. In such an event, it shall not be reversed or altered by a court Full Judgment
Y.K. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
AKHILESH YADAV VS VISHWANATH CHATURVEDI & ORS
The scope of a review petition is very limited and the submissions advanced were made mainly on questions of fact. As has been repeatedly indicated by this Court, review of a judgment on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is permissible, but an error apparent on the face of the record has to be decided on the facts of each Full Judgment