Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.05 seconds)
Documents citing Mr N Thejas Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 March, 2022

Sri L Sathish Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 7 December, 2022

i) The learned senior counsel submits that as on the enquiry made by the complainant with accused No.1 on 4.11.2016 or the subsequent demand on 5.11.2016 the file is not pending with the accused No.2 and he has already sent back the file to the accused No.1 as on 2.11.2016 itself, there is no dispute in this regard. The accused No.2 also given explanation that there is nothing pending with him as on the date of demand and acceptance by accused no.1. That apart the Investigating Officer seized the file belonging to the complainant from the accused No.1 and there is no order passed by accused No.2 for refund of taxes requested by the complainant. Therefore, in this regard the prosecution utterly failed to connect the accused No.2 with the work of the complainant pending with the accused No.2. He may be an authority for passing the order but accused no.1 had kept the file, it was seized by the police from the custody of the accused No.1, therefore it cannot be said that the work was 18 pending with accused No.2/present petitioner. The similar view was taken by this Court in the Tejas Kumar's case. Therefore, there is no material to proceed against this petitioner for trial.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - K Natarajan - Full Document

Sri.B.T.Raju vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 June, 2024

14. This Court in the case of N.Thejas Kumar vs. State of Karnataka and Another in W.P.No.915/2022 and in the case of L.Sathish Kumar vs. State by Lokayuktha and Another in W.P.No.15314/2022 (GM- RES), have taken similar view that demand and acceptance is sine qua non for establishing the offence under section 7 of PC Act. Here in this case, the petitioner is not an Authority for granting any alternative land or site to the complainant and he has not received the file to his table and it was with the Assistant Executive Engineer.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - K Natarajan - Full Document

Sri. Suresh Hebbagilu vs State Of Karnataka on 30 April, 2024

In Thejas Kumar's case supra, the coordinate bench of this Court having found that the material on record in the said case reflected that no work of the first informant was pending with the petitioner therein and conversation between the parties was not recorded, and there was absolutely no material to show that the demand for payment of bribe was made, had quashed the FIR that was registered against the petitioner therein for the offences punishable under the P.C.Act. In the said case, except the statement of the first informant in his complaint, there was no other prima facie material against the petitioner.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S V Shetty - Full Document
1