Filter by Date
Supreme Court of India
STATE OF KERALA & ANR.Vs C.P. RAO

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1098 OF 2006 Judgment Date: May 16, 2011

when there was no corroboration of testimony of the complainant regarding the demand of bribe by the accused, it has to be accepted that the version of the complainant is not corroborated and, therefore, the evidence of the complainant cannot be relied on. mere recovery of tainted 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. The mere recovery by itself cannot prove Full Judgment

Tags: Corruption PC Act

Supreme Court of India
C.M. SHARMA Vs STATE OF A.P.

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.232 OF 2006 Judgment Date: Nov 25, 2010

“26. Therefore, the very foundation of the prosecution case is shaken to a great extent. 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 Full Judgment

Tags: Corruption PC Act

Supreme Court of India
Banarsi Dass Vs State of Haryana

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 630 OF 2003 Judgment Date: Apr 05, 2010

It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that the conviction of an accused cannot be founded on the basis of inference. The offence should be proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or even by circumstantial evidence if each link of the chain of events is established pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has to lead cogent evidence in that regard. So far as it satisfies the essentials of a complete chain Full Judgment

Tags: Corruption PC Act

Supreme Court of India
C.M. Girish Babu Vs CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 377 OF 2009 Judgment Date: Feb 24, 2009

The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. that it is not enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public servant to make it acceptance of gratification and prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid amounted to gratification, 19. It is well settled Full Judgment

Tags: Corruption PC Act

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel Versus State of Gujarat & Anr.

Appeal (Crl.), ---- of 2008, Judgment Date: May 13, 2008

Full Judgment

Tags: Interpretation

Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench- Five Judge)
M.Nagaraj & Others Vs Union of India & Others

Writ Petition (Civil), 61 of 2002, Judgment Date: Oct 19, 2006

CONCLUSION: The impugned constitutional amendments by which Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) have been inserted flow from Article 16(4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16(4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness and inadequacy of representation which enables the States to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the State administration under Article 335. These impugned amendments are confined only to Full Judgment

Tags: Reservation Interpretation

Supreme Court of India
MANSUKHLAL VITHALDAS CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, .... Judgment Date: Sep 03, 1997

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

Tags: Corruption PC Act Prosecution Sanction

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Union Of India And Anr vs Ashok Kumar Mitra

Appeal (Crl.), 311-12 of 1995, Judgment Date: Feb 24, 1995

Full Judgment

Tags: Interpretation Forgery And Cheating PC Act

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
AJAY AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Appeal (Crl.), 400 of 1993, Judgment Date: May 05, 1993

Full Judgment

Tags: Interpretation Conspiracy

Supreme Court of India
Babu Lal Bajpai Vs State Of U.P.

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, ... Judgment Date: Nov 24, 1992

 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

Tags: Corruption PC Act

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Ranjit Kumar Ghosh And Another vs Sirish Chandra Bose And Others

Appeal (Civil), ---- Judgment Date: Jan 17, 1992

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India
K. VEERASWAMI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 1979 Judgment Date: Jul 25, 1991

Full Judgment

Tags: Corruption PC Act

Patna High Court
Subrato Shaha Versus State of Bihar and Anr.

---- Judgment Date: Mar 28, 1989

Full Judgment

Tags: Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings Interpretation

Supreme Court of India
G.V.NanjundiahVs State (Delhi Administration)

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, ...... Judgment Date: Aug 12, 1987

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

Tags: Corruption PC Act

Gujarat High Court
Dr. Arvind C. Shah vs State Of Gujarat

CRIMINAL APPEAL, ---- Judgment Date: Dec 02, 1985

Full Judgment

Tags: Corruption Interpretation PC Act

Supreme Court of India (Single Judge)
NIRANJAN SINGH & ANR. Vs. PRABHAKAR RAJARAM KHAROTE & ORS.

Special Leave Petition (Crl.), 393 of 1980, Judgment Date: Mar 10, 1980

Full Judgment

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
K.R.K. Vara Prasad vs Union Of India

---- Judgment Date: Feb 12, 1980

Full Judgment

Tags: Interpretation

Supreme Court of India
Suraj Mal Vs State (Delhi Administration)

Special Leave Petition (Crl.), .... Judgment Date: Feb 13, 1979

 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

Tags: Corruption PC Act

Supreme Court of India
MOHD. IQBAL, AHMAD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Appeal (Crl.), Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1973. Judgment Date: Jan 18, 1979

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

Tags: Corruption PC Act Prosecution Sanction

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
State Of West Bengal Etc vs Manmal Bhutoria & Ors. Etc

Appeal (Civil), 1134 of 1973, Judgment Date: May 03, 1977

  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

Tags: Interpretation PC Act