Judgments - Corruption
N.SUNKANNA Vs. STATE OF A.P.
The prosecution has not examined any other witness present at the time when the money was demanded by the accused and also when the money was allegedly handed-over to the accused by the complainant. The complainant himself had disowned his complaint and has turned hostile and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand. In short there is no Full Judgment
ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD Vs. CBI
In the end I may add that it is not obligatory on the Court to hold a joint trial and provisions of these sections are only enabling provisions. An accused cannot insist with ulterior purpose or otherwise that he be tried as co-accused with other accused, that too in a different case. It is only a discretionary power and Court may Full Judgment
Dilip Kumar Das Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (ACB), Chhattisgarh, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.), Civil & Revenue Distt. Durg (C.G.)
RANDHIR SINGH Vs C.B.I.
Kiran Chander Asri Vs State of Haryana
P. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Vs THE DIST. INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANR.
In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the imperative pre-requisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B. Jayaraj (supra) in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act. It has been propounded Full Judgment
INDRAVIJAY ALOK Vs. STATE OF M.P.
C.B.I. Vs. MANINDER SINGH
Special Police Establishment Lokayukt Vs Padma Gaud
GURJANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
NANJAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
A plain reading of Section 19(1) (supra) leaves no manner of doubt that the same is couched in mandatory terms and forbids courts from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 against public servants except with the previous sanction of the competent authority enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 19. The provision contained Full Judgment
Manoj Kumar Dwivedi Vs State Of U.P. And Another
CHAITANYA PRAKASH AUDICHYA Vs. CBI
It is further well established that where misconduct is proved, the alleged enmity between the complainant and the delinquent officer is immaterial. (See B. Hanumantha Rao v. State of A.P.[4]). Full Judgment
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. Vs. CHAUDHARI RAN BEER SINGH AND ANR.
Smt. Nandani Ramchandani And Ors. Vs. The State Of U.P And Ors.
Section 3 of PML Act clearly speaks that whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of the crime and projecting it as untainted property shall be guilty of the offences of money laundering. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the person who acquired the proceeds of crime is being helped by anybody directly or indirectly knowingly to convert that Full Judgment
K.L BAKOLIA Vs. STATE TH. DIRECTOR,C.B.I.
For coming to the finding of guilt for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, firstly, there must be a demand and secondly, there must be acceptance in the sense that the accused received illegal gratification. Full Judgment