Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing Mahadeo Daunappa Gunaki And Anr. vs State on 18 September, 1951

In Re: P.S. Aravamudha Iyengar vs Unknown on 17 November, 1958

17. That this appellant-accused was asking for bribe to see-art an employment to P.W. 2 it makes no difference whether the public servant was in a position to appoint him or not. Crown v. Phul Singh A.I.R. 1941 Lah 276, Mahadeo Daunappa v. State ; Indur Dayaldas v. State of Bombay and Ram Sewak v. Emperor 48 Cri LJ 467 : A.I.R. 1948 All 17. The bribe was given is spoken to not only by P.W. 2 but also by the Inspector P.W. 7, the Karnam P.W. 3 and the B.A. B.T. Assistant P.W. 4.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.S. Aravamudha Iyengar vs The State Of Madras on 17 November, 1958

276; Mahadeo Dannappa v. State ; Indur Dayaldas v. State of Bombay ; Satya Vir v. State , the bribe was given is spoken to not only by P.W. 2 but also by the Inspector P.W. 7, the Karnam P.W. 3 and the B.A., B.T. Assistant, P.W. 4. The accused himself does not deny that he was caught with M.Os. 1 to 10 after obtaining Ram Krishnan bribe. In fact he wanted to make out that it was the repayment of a loan. Now, in view of Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Central Act II of 1947) a presumption at once arises that accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward. The Legislature has by the words ' shall presume ' used in Section 4(1) of the Act, made it obligatory on the Court to raise a presumption in every case brought under the Prevention of Corruption Act that the accused received or accepted the money as an illegal gratification unless he rebutted the same.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1