Judgments - PC Act
PRADIP MITTAL S/O KAUSHAL KISHORE MITTAL Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS
From the ratio laid down in the above judgment, it is clear that the main determinative factor for deciding the place of offence is the place where the offence has actually taken place. It is also observed in the said judgment that when it is certain where exactly the offence under Section 13 of the PC Act is committed, it is an unnecessary exercise to ponder over the other areas wherein certain allied activities such as conspiracy or preparation had Full Judgment
Krishna Kant Rathod Vs Union of India, through C.B.I.,Jabalpur
It is not proved that appellant had received money from complainant as bribe or illegal gratification. The complainant turned hostile, there was no other witnesses present at the time of transaction between complainant and appellant. The complainant disowned the contents of his complaint. In these set of facts Hon’ble Apex Court has observed “when complainant disowned his own statement the contents of complaint cannot be relied on”.In the present case the complainant in his examination in chief has categorically denied the Full Judgment
Sudhakar Rastogi Vs. State Of U.P.
MUKHTIAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.R. VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB
The indispensability of the proof of demand and illegalgratification in establishing a charge under Sections 7 and 13 of theAct, has by now engaged the attention of this Court on umpteen occasions. In A. Subair vs. State of Kerala, this Court propounded that the prosecution in order to prove the charge under the above provisions has to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification and till that is accomplished, the accused should be considered to Full Judgment
P.N. MOHANAN NAIR Versus STATE OF KERALA
The short question of law for consideration is, if the offences essentially constitute a single transaction, but have been split up by the prosecution into three separate cases, will the sentences imposed individually, run concurrently or consecutively? Suffice it to observe that in the facts of the case, the exercise of discretion under Section 427(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, mandates that the substantive sentences imposed upon the appellant in the three separate prosecutions, are directed to run concurrently,except the default Full Judgment
M.S. BADHAN Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
ASHOK SIRPAUL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
The whole question hinges around whether dismissing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner will cause grave injustice/prejudice to him? The answer is YES. However, looking into the above facts and circumstances, to avoid serious prejudice going to be caused qua against the petitioner, as the witnesses, i.e. PW1, PW13 and PW15, are the material witnesses and they have not been able to cross-examined by the petitioner due the circumstances discussed above. The right to cross-examination which Full Judgment
SIBNATH Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
RAJESH SARDA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
STATE OF MAH. THR. POLICE INSPECTOR, ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, CHANDRAPUR Vs PRABHAKAR S/O VISTARI UDDARWAR
PRAKASHKUMAR S/O MURLIDHAR BHISIKAR Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. POLICE STATION
FAKIRA S/O MADGU KANNAKE Vs STATE OF MAH. THRU. PSO MULCHERA
STATE OF MAHA Vs MOHAN MADHUSUDAN DASKHEDKAR
STATE OF JHARKHAND THR.S.P.,CBI,RANCHI Vs. SAJAL CHAKRABORTY
39. The modus operandi being the same would not make it a single offence when the offences are separate. Commission of offence pursuant to a conspiracy has to be punished. If conspiracy is furthered into several distinct offences there have to be separate trials. There may be a situation where in furtherance of general conspiracy, Full Judgment
RAVI SO. RAJU BHALERAO Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
SHRI RANJIT KUMAR SAHA & ANR VS THE UNION OF INDIA & 7 ORS
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR Vs. AMIT KUMAR @ BACHCHA RAI
PRADEEP S/O TRIMBAKRAO KALE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
RAM KISHAN FAUJI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
“The expression "civil proceeding" is not defined in the Constitution, nor in the General Clauses Act. The expression in our judgment covers all proceedings in which a party asserts the existence of a civil right conferred by the civil law or by statute, and claims relief for breach thereof.” “A criminal proceeding on the other hand is ordinarily Full Judgment
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. FATEHKARAN MEHDU
The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and Full Judgment