Judgments - PC Act
N.V. Subba Rao Vs. State, through Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE, Visakhapatnam, A.P.
Bangaru Laxman Versus State (through CBI) & another
DINESH KUMAR Versus CHAIRMAN, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
STATE OF KERALA & ANR.Vs C.P. RAO
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
C.M. SHARMA Vs STATE OF A.P.
“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
Banarsi Dass Vs State of Haryana
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
C.M. Girish Babu Vs CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala
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
Ganga Kumar Srivastava versus The State of Bihar
MANSUKHLAL VITHALDAS CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
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
Union Of India And Anr vs Ashok Kumar Mitra
Babu Lal Bajpai Vs State Of U.P.
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
K. VEERASWAMI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
G.V.NanjundiahVs State (Delhi Administration)
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
Dr. Arvind C. Shah vs State Of Gujarat
Suraj Mal Vs State (Delhi Administration)
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
MOHD. IQBAL, AHMAD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
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
State Of West Bengal Etc vs Manmal Bhutoria & Ors. Etc
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
S. A. Venkataraman vs The State(And Connected Appeal)
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