Filter by Date
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

S.DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE TR.INSPECTOR & ANR

Appeal (Crl.), 162 of 2012, Judgment Date: Dec 12, 2014

Non-Reportable Full Judgment

Tags PC Act
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

VINAYAK NARAYAN DEOSTHALI Vs. C.B.I.

Appeal (Crl.), 346 of 2004, Judgment Date: Dec 02, 2014

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

ANTONY CARDOZA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Appeal (Crl.), 19 of 2013, Judgment Date: Nov 14, 2014

Full Judgment

Tags PC Act
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

B. JAYARAJ Vs STATE OF A.P.

Appeal (Crl.), CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 696 OF 2014 of 2012, Judgment Date: Mar 28, 2014

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

Supreme Court of India

P.L.Tatwal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 456 OF 2014 Judgment Date: Feb 19, 2014

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

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

State through CBI New Delhi Vs Jitender Kumar Singh

Appeal (Crl.), 943 of 2008, Judgment Date: Feb 05, 2014

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

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

MANOHAR LAL SHARMA VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY @ ORS

Writ Petition (Crl.), 120 of 2012, Judgment Date: Dec 17, 2013

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

MANISH TRIVEDI VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Appeal (Crl.), 1881 of 2013, Judgment Date: Oct 29, 2013

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Y.K. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.

Appeal (Civil), 9087 of 2012, Judgment Date: Dec 14, 2012

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

N.V. Subba Rao Vs. State, through Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE, Visakhapatnam, A.P.

Appeal (Crl.), 1688 of 2008, Judgment Date: Dec 03, 2012

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Bangaru Laxman Versus State (through CBI) & another

Appeal (Crl.), 2164-2165 of 2011, Judgment Date: Nov 22, 2011

Full Judgment

Tags Pardon PC Act
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

DINESH KUMAR Versus CHAIRMAN, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Appeal (Crl.), 2170-2171 of 2011, Judgment Date: Nov 22, 2011

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF KERALA & ANR.Vs C.P. RAO

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1098 OF 2006 Judgment Date: May 16, 2011

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

Supreme Court of India

C.M. SHARMA Vs STATE OF A.P.

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.232 OF 2006 Judgment Date: Nov 25, 2010

“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

Supreme Court of India

Banarsi Dass Vs State of Haryana

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 630 OF 2003 Judgment Date: Apr 05, 2010

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

Supreme Court of India

C.M. Girish Babu Vs CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 377 OF 2009 Judgment Date: Feb 24, 2009

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

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Ganga Kumar Srivastava versus The State of Bihar

Appeal (Crl.), 1186 of 1999, Judgment Date: Jul 20, 2005

Full Judgment

Tags PC Act
Supreme Court of India

MANSUKHLAL VITHALDAS CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, .... Judgment Date: Sep 03, 1997

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

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Union Of India And Anr vs Ashok Kumar Mitra

Appeal (Crl.), 311-12 of 1995, Judgment Date: Feb 24, 1995

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India

Babu Lal Bajpai Vs State Of U.P.

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, ... Judgment Date: Nov 24, 1992

 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