Judgments
G.V.NanjundiahVs State (Delhi Administration)
The question as to the handing-over of any bribe and recovery of the same from the accused should be considered along with other material circumstances one of which is the question whether any demand was at all made by the appellant for the bribe. When it is found that no such demand was made by the accused and the prosecution has given a false story in that regard, the Court will view the allegation of payment of the bribe to Full Judgment
MACKINNON MACKENZIE & CO. LTD Vs. AUDREY D’COSTA & ANR
MRS. ELIZABETH DINSHAW Vs.ARVAND M. DINSHAW AND ANR.
Dr. Arvind C. Shah vs State Of Gujarat
SMT. SAROJ RANI VS. SUDARSHAN KUMAR CHADHA
SMT. SURINDAR KAUR SANDHU Vs.HARBAX SINGH SANDHU & ANR.
SIRAJMOHMEDKHAN JANMOHAMADKHAN VS. HAFIZUNNISA YASINKHAN & ANR.
K.R.K. Vara Prasad vs Union Of India
Suraj Mal Vs State (Delhi Administration)
In our opinion, mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. Thus mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the appellant, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the appellant voluntarily accepted the money. Full Judgment
MOHD. IQBAL, AHMAD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Any case instituted without proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must therefore be strictly complied with before any prosecution could be launched against public servants. The presumption does not arise automatically but only on proof of certain circumstances that is to say, Full Judgment
LILA GUPTA Vs LAXMI NARAIN & ORS
HELD : (1) Examining the matter from all possible angles and keeping in view the fact that the scheme of the Act provides for, treating certain marriages void and simultaneously some marriages which are made punishable yet not void and no consequences having been provided for in respect of the marriage in contravention of the proviso to s. 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 it cannot be said that such marriage would be void. In the instant case, as the Full Judgment
State Of West Bengal Etc vs Manmal Bhutoria & Ors. Etc
HEADNOTE: In May 1967 a case was lodged against the respondent and a Major of the Indian Army who was retired in 1966, alleging that the Major, along with the respondent, had committed offences of conspiracy of criminal misconduct by a public servant in dishonestly abusing his position as a public servant, under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. When the case, which was allotted to the Fourth Additional Special Court under s. 4(.2) of the West Bengal Full Judgment