Judgments
Babu Lal Bajpai Vs State Of U.P.
there was no motive for demanding and accepting the bribe because no bill was pending before him for pre-audit. Secondly, there was no independent witness examined although it was possible for the prosecution to secure one to witness the actual transaction. The only witness who could be said to be independent was the Executive Magistrate who was asked by the District Magistrate to accompany the raiding party for laying the trap. Even this witness, in his deposition, has failed to support Full Judgment
Payal Jindal (Mrs) Vs. A.K. Jindal
Ranjit Kumar Ghosh And Another vs Sirish Chandra Bose And Others
K. VEERASWAMI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Smt. Sureshta Devi vs Om Prakash
SMT. ISABELLA JOHNSON vs. M.A. SUSAI
Subrato Shaha Versus State of Bihar and Anr.
RAM NARAIN GUPTA Vs. SMT. RAMESHWARI GUPTA
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