Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 45 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing Sri K.M.V.L. Narsimha Rao vs The State Of A.P., Represented By Its ... on 3 July, 2018

Case Titled As M. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 27 October, 2018

213.In the case of M. Narsinga Rao (supra), a three judge bench of Supreme Court was dealing with legal question that "can a legal presumption be based on a factual presumption?" In that case as well, the complainant and independent witness to the trap proceedings had turned hostile and they did not support the allegations of the prosecution that accused had demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs. 500/- from PW-1. In the appeal, accused took plea before the court that the presumption u/s 20 of the Act could be drawn only when the prosecution succeeded in establishing with direct evidence that the delinquent public servant accepted or obtained gratification. Defence also argued that "that premise cannot depend on an inference for affording foundation for the legal presumption envisaged in section 20 of the Act." It was further argued by defence that it is not enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public servant, to make it acceptance of gratification. Prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid amounted to gratification.
Delhi District Court Cites 90 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Through Cbi vs Kishor Kumar Kanungo & Others on 28 May, 2019

22. It is equally true that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 15 of the said verdict, the word 'proof' needs to be understood in the sense in which it is defined in the Evidence Act because proof depends upon the admissibility of evidence and that the 'proof' of the facts depends upon the degree of probability of its having existed and that 'proof' does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration, because that is impossible and must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to a particular conclusion as held in Fletcher Moulton L.J. in Hawkins vs. Powells Tillery Steam Coal Company Ltd. 1911 (1) KB 988 referred to with approval in para 15 of the verdict in M. Narsinga Rao (supra). The observations in paras 15, 16 & 17 of the said verdict read to the effect:
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - A Malhotra - Full Document

Deorao Marotrao Bhagatkar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Thr. ... on 14 August, 2018

22. A perusal of the said provision shows that once facts pertaining to acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused are proved, it shall be presumed that the accused accepted such gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing from doing an official act, unless the contrary stood proved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the manner in which such ::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2018 01:54:33 ::: APEAL406.04-Judgment 22/40 presumption under section 20 of the said Act would operate, in its judgment in the case of M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. (supra). In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court analyzed the concept of presumption, based on factual aspects proved against the accused charged with offences under the provisions of the said act. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:-
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

S.A.Ravoof, vs The State Of A.P., on 31 October, 2018

9 The Public Prosecutor relies on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in M.Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P.1 in support of his contention that proof of acceptance by the accused would suffice. The Supreme Court explained the word 'may presume' and 'shall presume' and discussed about the illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which allows the court to presume that 'a man, who is in possession of the stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.' It held that said illustration can profitably be used in the context therein as well when prosecution brings reliable materials that appellant's pocket contains phenolphthalein smeared currency notes for Rs.500/- when he was searched by the DSP, ACB. It was further held that that by itself may not or need not necessarily lead to a presumption that he accepted that amount from somebody else either stuffing those currency notes into his pocket or stealthily inserting the same therein. It observed that the other 1 2001 Cri.L.J.515 10 circumstances, which have been proved in this case and those preceding and succeeding the searching of the tainted currency notes are relevant and useful to help the court to draw a factual presumption that appellant had willingly received the currency notes. The court also observed that the presumption under Section 4(1) of the P.C.Act is a rebuttable presumption.
Telangana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

T.Rammohan Reddy, vs The State Of A.P., on 12 November, 2018

10. The Public Prosecutor relies on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in M.Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P.1 in support of his contention that proof of acceptance by the accused would suffice. The Supreme Court explained the word 'may presume' and 'shall presume' and discussed about the illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which allows the court to presume that 'a man, who is in possession of the stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.' It held that said illustration can profitably be used in the context therein as well 1 2001 Cri.L.J.515 7 when prosecution brings reliable materials that appellant's pocket contains phenolphthalein smeared currency notes for Rs.500/- when he was searched by the DSP, ACB. It was further held that that by itself may not or need not necessarily lead to a presumption that he accepted that amount from somebody else either stuffing those currency notes into his pocket or stealthily inserting the same therein. It observed that the other circumstances, which have been proved in this case and those preceding and succeeding the searching of the tainted currency notes, are relevant and useful to help the court to draw a factual presumption that appellant had willingly received the currency notes. The court also observed that the presumption under Section 4(1) of the P.C.Act is a rebuttable presumption.
Telangana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijaykumar Piraji Chinchalkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 2019

If these ingredients are established by the prosecution, then the Charge leveled, can be held to be proved. The third requirement in respect of motive or reward for doing official act is generally difficult to prove against the public servant. Therefore, the legislature has enacted Section 20 which prescribes rule of presumption. The presumption specified therein will arise only avk 25 ::: Uploaded on - 09/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2019 01:22:36 ::: APPEAL-663-2016-J.doc upon proof that accused had, in pursuant to demand, accepted any gratification other than legal remuneration. This mandatory presumption of law is required to be understood in terrorum i.e. in tone of command (see M. Narsinga Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh5).
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - A M Badar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next