Harish Chand Khurana vs State Thr. Cbi/Acb New Delhi on 30 May, 2012
In N. Rarasinga Rao vs. State of AP (2001) 1 SCC 691 it is held as
under:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 300 (1.76 seconds)Documents citing
N. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000
I.D No.02401R0929542608, Cbi vs G.S. Raju Decided On on 16 November, 2013
"The only condition for drawing such a legal
presumption under Section 4 is that during trial it
should be proved that the accused has accepted or
agreed to accept any gratification. The Section does
not say that the said condition should be satisfied
through direct evidence. Its only requirement is that
it must be proved that the accused has accepted or
agreed to accept gratification. Direct evidence is
one of the modes through which a fact can be
proved. But that is not the only mode envisaged in
the Evidence Act." (Emphasis supplied) (See M.
Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. (2000 (1) SCC 691).
AIR 2001 SC 318 : 2000 AIR SCW 4427 : 2001 Cri
LJ 515.
Neeraj Dutta vs State(Govt.Of N.C.T.Of Delhi) on 15 December, 2022
9. On a perusal of the Order of Reference, we find that it has been
discerned by a bench of three judges that there is a conflict in the
decisions of two three-judge Benches of this Court in the cases of B.
Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55 (“B.
Jayaraj”); P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. D. Inspector of Police,
State of A.P. (2015) 10 SCC 152 (“P. Satyanarayana Murthy”)
with the decision in M. Narsinga Rao vs. State of A.P. (2001) 1 SCC
691 (“M. Narsinga Rao”) with regard to the nature and quality of
proof necessary to sustain a conviction under Section 7 and Section
13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act when the primary evidence
of the complainant is unavailable. Thus, in the absence of primary
evidence of the complainant due to his death or non-availability, is it
permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/ guilt of a
public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section
13(1)(d) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the
prosecution, is the neat question which is under consideration by this
Constitution Bench.
C.Saroja vs / on 27 June, 2018
20. A three-Judge Bench in M. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of A.P. (2001) 1 SCC 691 while dealing with the contention that it is not enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public servant to make it acceptance of gratification and prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid amounted to gratification, observed:(SCC p.700, para 24)
"24........we think it is not necessary to deal with the matter in detail because in a recent decision rendered by us the said aspect has been dealt with at length.
Prem Singh Yadav vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 25 March, 2011
"20. A three-Judge Bench in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. while
dealing with the contention that it is not enough that some
currency notes were handed over to the public servant to make it
acceptance of gratification and prosecution has a further duty to
prove that what was paid amounted to gratification, observed: (SCC
p.700, para 24)
Thangavel vs State Rep. By on 10 February, 2012
(iii) 2001 Crl.L.J. 515 (M.Narsinga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh), in para-18 and 19, it reads as follows:
Harjit Singh vs State Of U.T., Chandigarh on 9 September, 2014
A three-Judge Bench in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P.,
2001(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 95 : (2001) 1 SCC 691 : AIR 2001 SC 318 while
dealing with the contention that it is not enough that some currency notes
were handed over to the public servant to make it acceptance of
gratification and prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid
amounted to gratification, observed:
V Raghav Rao Now Dead Through Legal ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Now State Of ... on 5 December, 2011
10. When the sub-section deals with legal
presumption, it is to be understood as in terrorem
i.e. in tone of a command that it has to be
presumed that the accused accepted the
gratification as a motive or reward for doing or
forbearing to do any official act etc. if the
condition envisaged in the former part of the
section is satisfied. The only condition for
drawing such a legal presumption under Section 4 of
the 1947 Act is that during trial it should be
proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to
accept any gratification. The section does not say
that the said condition should be satisfied through
direct evidence. Its only requirement is that it
must be proved that the accused has accepted or
agreed to accept gratification. Direct evidence is
one of the modes through which a fact can be
proved. But that is not the only mode envisaged in
the Evidence Act. (See M. Narsinga Rao v. State of
A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691)"
Harpal Singh Bundela vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 September, 2017
20. A three-Judge Bench in M. Narsinga Rao
Vs. State of A.P. (2001) 1 SCC 691 while dealing
with the contention that it is not enough that some
currency notes were handed over to the public
servant to make it acceptance of gratification and
prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was
paid amounted to gratification, observed:
Cbi vs . Mahavir Prasad S/O. Sh. Bhoop Singh, on 28 August, 2015
20. A threeJudge Bench in
M.Narsinga Rao Vs. State of A.P. (2001 (1)
SCC 691 ; SCC (Crl.)