Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 197 (5.46 seconds)
Documents citing Krishan Chander vs State Of Delhi on 6 January, 2016

Dawatram @ Dilip Kumar Bhardwaj vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 August, 2021

"39. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the approach of both the trial court and the High Court in the case is erroneous as both the courts have relied upon the evidence of the prosecution on the aspect of demand of illegal gratification from the complainant Jai Bhagwan (PW2) by the appellant though there is no substantive evidence in this regard and the appellant was erroneously convicted for the charges framed against him. The prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand of bribe money made by the appellant from the complainant Jai Bhagwan (PW2), which is the sine qua non for convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Thus, the impugned judgment and order [Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2312] of the High Court is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law and therefore, liable to be set aside."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rohit Kumar Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 June, 2021

"39. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the approach of both the trial court and the High Court in the case is erroneous as both the courts have relied upon the evidence of the prosecution on the aspect of demand of illegal gratification from the complainant Jai Bhagwan (PW2) by the appellant though there is no substantive evidence in this regard and the appellant was erroneously convicted for the charges framed against him. The prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand of bribe money made by the appellant from the complainant Jai Bhagwan (PW2), which is the sine qua non for convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Thus, the impugned judgment and order [Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2312] of the High Court is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law and therefore, liable to be set aside."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bhim Singh @ Bhimsen Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 18 August, 2020

39. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the approach of both the trial court and the High Court in the case is erroneous as both the courts have relied upon the evidence of the prosecution on the aspect of demand of illegal gratification from the complainant Jai Bhagwan (PW 2) by the appellant though there is no substantive evidence in this regard and the appellant was erroneously convicted for the charges framed against him. The prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand of bribe money made by the appellant from the complainant Jai Bhagwan (PW 2), which is the sine qua non for convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Thus, the impugned judgment and order [Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2312] of the High Court is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law and therefore, liable to be set aside."(Emphasis Supplied) and submits that as there is absolutely no evidence in record regarding demand and acceptance hence, this is a fit case where the appellant-accused be acquitted by at least giving him the benefit of doubt. It is lastly submitted that that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence being not sustainable in law be set aside and the this appeal be allowed.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

Bhaurao S/O Wasudev Chauhan vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Anti ... on 24 January, 2024

On the similar point, learned Senior Counsel further placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Krishan Chander vs. State of Delhi supra wherein also complainant turned hostile on the point of demand and acceptance and pancha witness did not hear conversation between accused and complainant at a time when complainant approached him to give bribery.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hari Charan Rajak vs The State Of Jharkhand Through A.C.B. ... on 22 December, 2021

31. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is no dispute that it is a settled principle of law that mere recovery of the bribe money by itself cannot bring home the charge for the offences punishable under section 7 or 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money, as has inter alia been held in the cases of Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi (supra), P.Satyanarayana Murthy Versus State ofA.P.(Supra), B. Jayaraj Versus State of A.P.(Supra), Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict and as already discussed above in this judgment while referring to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict. There is also no quarrel that it is also a settled principle of law that suspicion, however grave it may be, 26 Cr.Appeal (SJ).
Jharkhand High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

Basappa S/O Adivappaand Anr vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2020

16. Further the learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex 18 Court in the case of Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi [(2016) ACR 98]. In this case the complainant has turned hostile on demand and acceptance of the bribe. Therefore, it was held in absence of same, the appellants/accused are entitled for acquittal. Further, it is on the principle of law that if demand and acceptance of bribe amount is not there for constituting the alleged offence, as it was absent in the said case, hence observed that the offences are not proved. Therefore, in that context, it was held that the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt against the accused.
Karnataka High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - H Sanjeevkumar - Full Document

Bhimendra Kumar Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 October, 2021

"39. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the approach of both the trial court and the High Court in the case is erroneous as both the courts have relied upon the evidence of the prosecution on the aspect of demand of illegal gratification from the complainant Jai Bhagwan (PW2) by the appellant though there is no substantive evidence in this regard and the appellant was erroneously convicted for the charges framed against him. The prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand of bribe money made by the appellant from the complainant Jai Bhagwan (PW2), which is the sine qua non for convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Thus, the impugned judgment and order [Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2312] of the High Court is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law and therefore, liable to be set aside."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next