Judgments - PC Act
C.B.I.,BANK SECURITIES & FRAUD CELL Vs. RAMESH GELLI & OR
While there can be no manner of doubt that in the Objects and Reasons stated for enactment of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it has been made more than clear that the Act, inter alia, envisages widening of the scope of the definition of public servant, nevertheless, the mere performance of public duties by the holder of any office cannot bring the incumbent Full Judgment
KRISHAN CHANDER Vs. STATE OF DELHI
it is clear that the High Court has recorded the concurrent findings on the charges framed against the Appellant in the impugned judgment and order. It has also failed to re-appreciate the evidence on record properly and consider the law on the relevant aspect of the case. Therefore, the said findings are not only erroneous in law but also suffer from error in law. Hence, the same is Full Judgment
Ramlal Sharma V/s State of Chhattisgarh Through-Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, & Ors.
M/S SHREE BHAGWATI STEEL ROLLING MILLS Vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ANR.
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
Pappu Singh Rajput Vs State Of Chhattisgarh Through: Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur (C.G.)
P S SHETTY Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
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
Special Police Establishment Lokayukt Vs Padma Gaud
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