Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 228 (2.03 seconds)
Documents citing P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State(Cbi/Spe) on 17 April, 1998

Sri C T Ravi vs State By Bagewadi P S on 2 May, 2025

194.11. The offence of bribery is agnostic to the performance of the agreed action and crystallises on the exchange of illegal gratification. It does not matter whether the 68 vote is cast in the agreed direction or if the vote is cast at all. The offence of bribery is complete at the point in time when the legislator accepts the bribe; and 194.12. The interpretation which has been placed on the issue in question in the judgment of the majority in P.V. Narasimha Rao [P.V. Narasimha Rao v. CBI, (1998) 4 SCC 626 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1108] results in a paradoxical outcome where a legislator is conferred with immunity when they accept a bribe and follow through by voting in the agreed direction. On the other hand, a legislator who agrees to accept a bribe, but eventually decides to vote independently will be prosecuted. Such an interpretation is contrary to the text and purpose of Articles 105 and 194."
Karnataka High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Unknown vs State Of Punjab on 17 March, 2023

“Since there is no authority competent to remove a Member of Parliament and to grant sanction for his prosecution under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the court can take cognizance of the offences mentioned in Section 19(1) in the absence of sanction but till provision is made by Parliament in that regard by suitable amendment in the law, the prosecuting agency, before filing a charge- sheet in respect of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 49 15 of the 1988 Act against a Member of Parliament in a criminal court, shall obtain the permission of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha/Speaker of the Lok Sabha, as the case may be.” In the instant case, as on the date of taking cognizance of the offences, the 2nd respondent was an MLA with the result that it was the Speaker and not the Governor who was the competent authority to grant permission to prosecute the 2nd respondent in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), (1998) 4 SCC
Madras High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - N A Venkatesh - Full Document

Cbi vs Geeta Rawat on 27 January, 2025

31. Therefore, in view of the majority view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V. Narsimha Rao case (supra), wherein it was held that the requirement of sanction u/S. 19(1) of PC Act is intended as a safe guard against criminal prosecution of a public servant on the basis of malicious or frivolous allegations by interested persons, the objection underlying the said requirement is not to condone the commission of an offence by a public servant. The inapplicability of the provision of Section 19 to a public servant would only mean that the intended safeguard was not intended to be made available to him, therefore, it appears that there was no prosecution authority or removal authority mentioned in the DMC Act 1957 for grant of sanction against the municipal councilor, therefore, the bar of Sec. 19(1) of PC Act would not apply qua A-1 Geeta Rawat.
Delhi District Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next