Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 534 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing K.C. Sareen vs C.B.I., Chandigarh on 2 August, 2001

Rahul Gandhi vs Purnesh Ishwerbhai Modi on 7 July, 2023

In the said case, relying on the case of K.C.Sareen (supra), it was reiterated that only in exceptional cases, the court should exercise the power of stay of conviction. Since the High Court in the said case had not pointed out any exceptional fact or looked into the ramification of keeping such conviction in abeyance, the order of the High Court staying the conviction was set aside.
Gujarat High Court Cites 129 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kv Srinivasa Prasad vs Revenue on 8 January, 2024

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 02.08.2021 in the case of K.C. Sareen Vs. C.B.I., Chandigarh in Appeal (crl.) No. 770 of 2001 has held that when a public servant was found guilty of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a court of law, judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior court. The mere fact that an appellate or revisional forum has decided to entertain his challenge and to go into the issues and findings made against such public servants once again should not even temporarily absolve him from such findings.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yad Ram Singh Shami vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 20 January, 2023

In the facts of the present case, it is evident firstly, that the case relates to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore falls within the situation contemplated in K.C. Sareen (supra), and would not deserve a suspension of sentence; secondly, the appellants have admittedly received all the retiral benefits along with interest, pursuant to the CBI having filed a closure report on 6thNovember 2008 and not recommending any departmental action to the CVC; thirdly, the decisions of this Court which the appellants rely upon both relate to show cause notice of termination against the appellants, which is not the case here since the appellants have now retired, received their retired benefits and are only canvassing against the possibility of the withdrawal of pension in full; fourthly, granting any such relief as sought for by the appellants, merely on the account of medical expenses required for personal exigencies, would open up floodgates for all those whose appeals are pending to be granted pensionary benefits upon suspension of the conviction. The counsel for the CBI has vehemently contended that this would open up a "Pandora's Box" for convicts under the Prevention of Corruption Act wanting to secure their pensionary benefits of their service despite convictions not having been overturned in appeal. Such a situation would also create issues of restitution of the State in the event the appellants do not succeed in the appeal.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahijibhai Kabhai Vasav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 March, 2009

stay of order of conviction which was granted. On the basis of the stay of the order of conviction, the appellant filed nomination for contesting the election of Karnataka legislative Assembly. The appellant was elected. The election of the appellant was challenged by the respondent by filing an Election Petition. High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was disqualified to contest the election in view of the fact that as on the date of filing of the nomination, the conviction against the appellant was not set aside. Therefore, the matter was carried to the Apex Court. The larger bench referred to the decision in earlier case in case of K.C.Sareen Vs. C.B.I.(supra). In paragraph 16.3 the Apex Court held thus :
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Srikrishan And Ors vs State on 21 October, 2009

15. Lastly, Shri Dwivedi has submitted that in view of the law laid down in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Jaganathan (1996) 5 SCC 329 and K.C. Sareen v. C.B.I., Chandigarh (2001) 6 SCC 584 the order of conviction passed against the appellant should not be suspended. The cases cited have no application to the facts of the present case as both of them related to conviction on charges of corruption and in that context it was observed that when conviction is on a corruption charge, it would be a sublime public policy that the convicted person is kept under disability of the conviction instead of keeping the sentence of imprisonment in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal. In such cases it is obvious that it would be highly improper to suspend the order of conviction of a public servant which would enable him to occupy the same office which he misused. This is not the case here.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next