Judgments - PC Act
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
STATE OF A.P. Vs. P.VENKATESHWARLU
The demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution is duty bound to establish that there was illegal offer of bribe and acceptance thereof and it has to be founded on facts. The offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act has been confirmed by the Full Judgment
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. KESAVAPATNAM CHINA SWAMY
M/S Hcl Infosystem Ltd. Vs. C.B.I.
STATE OF M.P. Vs. RAKESH MISHRA WITH State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Gyanendra Singh Jadon
Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By the impugned judgment the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has allowed the three revision petitions, setting aside the orders of the First Additional Judge/ Special Judge, Indore, for framing charges against three accused persons, However, it would suffice to say that the law on this point is crystal clear that only charge-sheet along with the accompanying material is Full Judgment
D. VELAYUTHAM Vs. STATE REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
He has admitted the receipt of the bribe amount. The only effort at proving his innocence has been the submission that receipt of the entire sum was on behalf of Accused 1, no part of which was demanded by Accused 2 for his own keeping and consumption. This Court has ratiocinated in significant length and detail on the nature of evidence commonly encountered in trap cases Full Judgment
C SUKUMARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA
It has been continuously held by this Court in a catena of cases after interpretation of the provisions of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act that the demand of illegal gratification by the accused is the sine qua non for constituting an offence under the provisions of the Act. In the present case, as has been rightly held by the High Court, there Full Judgment
SANJAYSINH RAMRAO CHAVAN Vs. DATTATRAY GULABRAO PHALKE & ANR
Whether the High Court is within its jurisdiction to direct the investigating officer to make a request for sanction for prosecution from the competent authority? Cognizance is taken prior to commencement of criminal proceedings. Taking of cognizance is thus a sine qua non or condition precedent for holding a valid trial. Cognizance is taken of an offence and not Full Judgment
SUDERSHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.
S.DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE TR.INSPECTOR & ANR
Non-Reportable Full Judgment
VINAYAK NARAYAN DEOSTHALI Vs. C.B.I.
ANTONY CARDOZA Vs. STATE OF KERALA
B. JAYARAJ Vs STATE OF A.P.
7. In so far as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand Full Judgment
P.L.Tatwal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
The competent authority to give previous sanction is the authority competent to remove one from service. No doubt the appointing authority is the authority competent to remove him from service. The Statute is very clear that the authority competent to remove an officer from service is the authority to give sanction for prosecution. Full Judgment
State through CBI New Delhi Vs Jitender Kumar Singh
The Special Judge appointed under Section 3(1) could exercise the powers under sub-section (3) to Section 4 to try non-PC offence. Therefore, trying a case by a Special Judge under Section 3(1) is a sine-qua-non for exercising jurisdiction by the Special Judge for trying any offence, other than an offence specified in Section 3. “Trying any case” under Section 3(1) is, therefore, a jurisdictional fact for the Special Judge Full Judgment