Judgments - Supreme Court of India
GANGAI VINAYAGAR TEMPLE & ANR. Vs. MEENAKSHI AMMAL & ORS.
Anvar P.V. Vs P.K. Basheer and others
An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied Full Judgment
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Versus SANJAY
PAWAN KUMAR RALLI VERSUS MANINDER SINGH NARULA
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr.
ARNESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
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
Narinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr
P.L.Tatwal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
The competent authority to give previous sanction is the authority competent to remove one from service. No doubt the appointing authority is the authority competent to remove him from service. The Statute is very clear that the authority competent to remove an officer from service is the authority to give sanction for prosecution. 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