Mrs.Suseela vs P.M.Veeraragavan on 31 March, 2011
(i) CDJ 2009 MHC 2512 K.Subramani & Others v. P.Rajesh Khanna and another;
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (1.42 seconds)Documents citing
K.Subramani vs P.Rajesh Khanna on 3 December, 2008
Karnataka Lokayuktha Police vs N. Rajanna on 27 February, 2024
156.When this calculation is kept in mind,
income is much much much higher than the
total value of assets and expenditure. So,
there is no question of prosecution alleging
that the accused has amassed wealth
disproportionate to his known source of
income. As I have said early, when the
226
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015
items shown in the income category are
looked into, all the investigating officers
have not undertaken fair investigation. It
can only show before the Court that some
where in the line there are chances that it
might be a pre-plan or pre-conceived notion
only to see that value of assets and
expenditure are shown on a higher
rate/scale and income is kept low, only to
submit a charge sheet before the Court. In
this regard, according to me, some of the
documents placed by the prosecution have
not at all been marked. Rightly, the
counsel for the accused relied upon the
decision reported in 2009 AIHC Noc 800
(Mad) in the case of K.Subramani Vs.
P.Rajesh Khanna, wherein the Hon'ble
227
Spl.C.C. No.591/2015
High Court of Madras has held as "Mere
marking of an exhibit on a document
does not mean that the document has
been proved".
Radheshyam vs Smt. Devibai on 26 June, 2019
Petitioner in this petition has raised an issue that probate is not required
to be obtained in the State of Madhya Pradesh. He has relied on the judgment
passed by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Subramani vs. P. Rajesh
Khanna reported in AIR 2001 SC 1151. As High Court is ceased with the
matter in respect of M.J.C. No.302/2014, therefore, no orders could be passed
deciding the issue which has been raised by the petitioner.
1