Judgments
Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar vs Sunand
DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. Vs. M/S.GALAXY TRADES & AGENCIES LTD. & ORS.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS MILIND
PADMJA SHARMA VS. RATAN LAL SHARMA
M/S. SIL IMPORT, USA Vs. M/S. EXIM AIDES SILK EXPORTERS, BANGALORE
BHARAT BARREL AND DRUM MANUFACTURING COMPANY Vs. AMIN CHAND PAYRELAL
MANSUKHLAL VITHALDAS CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
From a perusal of Section 6, it would appear that the Central or the State Government or any other authority (depending upon the category of the public servant) has the right to consider the facts of each case and to decide whether that "public servant" is to be prosecuted or not. Since the Section clearly prohibits the Courts from taking cognizance of the offences specified therein, it envisages that Central or the State Government or the "other authority" has not Full Judgment
SHRI DINESH TRIVEDI, M.P. & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Smt. Rashmi Kumar vs Mahesh Kumar Bhada
SMT. YALLAWWA VS. SMT. SHANTAVVA
Union Of India And Anr vs Ashok Kumar Mitra
KUMARI MADHURI PATIL Vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. BABUL NATH
ACTION COMMITTEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA
AJAY AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
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