Filter by Date
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

Bombay High Court (Single Judge)
Ramkrishna Baburao Maske vs Kishan Shivraj Shelke

CRIMINAL APPEAL, ---- Judgment Date: Feb 01, 1974

Full Judgment

Tags: Interpretation Forgery And Cheating

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. LEELA JAIN

Appeal (Civil), 245 of 1962, Judgment Date: Sep 16, 1964

The preamble may, no doubt, be used to solve any ambiguity or to fix the meaning of words which may have more than one meaning, but it can, however, not be used to eliminate as redundant or unintended, the operative provisions of a statute. Full Judgment

Tags: Interpretation

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjab

Appeal (Crl.), 42 of 1963, Judgment Date: Aug 24, 1964

  HEADNOTE: The appellant was prosecuted and convicted for theft of electrical energy under s. 39 of the Indian Electricity Act (9 of 1910). He contended that, as his prosecution was for an offence against the Act it was incompetent, because, it had not been instituted at the instance of any of the persons mentioned in s. 50 of the Act. HELD : The conviction of the appellant must be set aside. The dishonest abstraction of electricity mentioned in s. 39 Full Judgment

Bombay High Court (Single Judge)
State Of Maharashtra vs Syndicate Transport Co. (P) Ltd.

CRIMINAL APPEAL, ---- Judgment Date: Sep 26, 1963

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
S. A. Venkataraman vs The State(And Connected Appeal)

Appeal (Crl.), 130 of 1956, Judgment Date: Dec 03, 1957

  HEADNOTE: The appellant who was a public servant was dismissed from service after departmental inquiry. Thereafter he was charged with having committed the offence of criminal misconduct under S. 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was convicted. No sanction under s. 6 of the Act was produced, before the trial Court. It was contended that the Court could not take cognizance of the offence without there being a proper sanction to prosecute : Held, that no sanction under s. Full Judgment

Tags: Interpretation PC Act

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Four Judge)
MOBARIK ALI AHMED Vs. THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Appeal (Crl.), 200 of 1956, Judgment Date: Sep 06, 1957

Full Judgment

Tags: Forgery And Cheating

Supreme Court of India
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAM NARAIN

Appeal (Crl.), 90 of 1952, Judgment Date: Oct 12, 1954

Full Judgment

Tags: Interpretation

Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench- Seven Judge)
MAQBOOL HUSSAIN Vs. THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Appeal (Crl.), 81 of 1952, Judgment Date: Apr 17, 1953

Full Judgment

Tags: Interpretation

Allahabad High Court
Narain Das And Anr. Versus Kashi Prasad

CIVIL REVISION, ---- Judgment Date: Oct 31, 1934

Full Judgment

Calcutta High Court (Constitution Bench- Five Judge)
Fateh Chand Agarwalla vs Emperor

---- Judgment Date: Aug 29, 1916

Full Judgment

Tags: Interpretation

Bombay High Court (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
Emperor vs Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

CRIMINAL APPEAL, ---- Judgment Date: Oct 06, 1910

Full Judgment