Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (2.56 seconds)
Documents citing S.Ram Yadav vs Cbi & Ors on 16 May, 2013

Cbi vs (1)Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla on 22 July, 2020

170. Similarly another judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in S.Ram Yadav's case (supra), Hon'ble Court had noted that legal search report given by a lawyer/accused was filed to the bank subsequent to recommendation of credit facility. Therefore in the light of the facts of that case it was held by the Hon'ble Court that once the bank had already awarded the credit facility without going through the legal search report of the accused advocate, therefore it cannot be said that accused advocate was in connivance or in conspiracy with co­accused. Evidently facts of that case were altogether different as court was only considering that the legal search report furnished by that advocate/accused CBI Vs. Rajiv Kumar @ Hakla & Etc. 82 was not the basis for grant of loan facility, therefore that person cannot be considered to be part of conspiracy. In this case the document Ex.PW5/A purportedly executed by A4 Manjeet Singh in favour of A2 was very much used by the bank when A2 Alka Devi stood guarantor. No doubt Alka Devi became guarantor when the loan account was already irregular, this was rather an unfortunate situation but one cannot say that there was no connivance of A2 or A4 at all in the commission of crime.
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.B.I. vs . 1. S. S. Rathore on 9 April, 2014

Sh. Manoj K. Singh, Ld. Counsel submitted that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in S. Ram Yadav Vs. CBI & Ors., 2013 (137) DRJ 131 while entertaining the petition against framing of charge by the Ld. Trial Court inter alia held that an error committed by an official, howsoever negligent cannot be termed as criminal misconduct on all CBI Vs. SS Rathore & Ors. CC No. 02/13 Page 74 of 118 accused. Reliance has been placed upon para 10 of the judgment which reads as under:
Delhi District Court Cites 77 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs . on 16 December, 2014

for issuance of additional passport booklets as is shown in Ex.PW­11/B, Ex.PW­5/K and Ex.PW­11/C (D­4), the inference u/s 15 of Evidence Act can be drawn that his act of clearing HIT in the file was intentional and not accidental. Thus, I find that the clearance of HIT by accused/Ram Chander is not mere negligence but a deliberate act and hence ratio of S.Ram Yadav's case (supra) do not protect his action.
Delhi District Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs . on 24 December, 2014

submissions of ld.Public Prosecutor that once it is proved that it was Ram Chander (A­3) who had cleared HIT in all the three files for issuance of additional passport booklets as is shown in Ex.PW­17/B, Ex.PW­17/C and Ex.PW­6/PD (D­4), the inference u/s 15 of Evidence Act can be drawn that his act of clearing HIT in the file Ex.PW­1/A (D­7) was intentional and not accidental. Thus, I find that the clearance of HIT by accused/Ram Chander is not mere negligence but an intentional act and hence ratio of S.Ram Yadav's case (supra) does not protect his action.
Delhi District Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1