Judgments - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
K. ANBAZHAGAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
We are called upon in this appeal to decide whether the 4th respondent was authorised to represent the case of the prosecution in the High Court of Karnataka in the appeals filed by the accused persons against their conviction by the Special Court, and if he was not so authorised, whether Full Judgment
KEDARI LAL Vs. STATE OF MP
The expression "known sources of income" in Section 13(1) (e) of the Act has two elements, first the income must be received from a lawful source and secondly the receipt of such income must have been intimated in accordance with the provisions of law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to the public servant. The categories so enumerated are illustrative. Receipt by way of share Full Judgment
Ramesh Handa Vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
SUDERSHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.
STATE TR.INSP.OF POLICE Vs. A.ARUN KUMAR & ANR.
STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. LABH SINGH
S.DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE TR.INSPECTOR & ANR
Non-Reportable Full Judgment
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