Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.89 seconds)
Smt V Umadevi vs The State By Karnataka on 6 October, 2023 cites

R.K.Anand vs Registrar,Delhi High Court on 29 July, 2009

13. Unlike US and certain other countries where a sting operation is recognised as a legal method of law enforcement, though in a limited manner as will be noticed hereinafter, the same is not the position in India which makes the issues arising in the present case somewhat unique. A sting operation carried out in public interest has had the approval of this Court in R.K. Anand v. High Court of Delhi [(2009) 8 SCC 106:
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 140 - A Alam - Full Document

Neeraj Dutta vs State(Govt.Of N.C.T.Of Delhi) on 15 December, 2022

(Emphasis supplied) 69 The Apex Court was clarifying the judgment rendered by the 5 Judge Bench in NEERAJ DUTTA v. STATE7 and the Apex Court holds that the basic concept of demand and acceptance has not been diluted and that is the soul of the offence under Section 7 of the Act. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand, as narrated above, are noticed on the bedrock of the provision and its interpretation by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, what would unmistakably emerge is that there is ostensible lack of demand of money, but the presence of alleged acceptance pervades through the allegations against the petitioners particularly to that officers working in the Commercial Tax Department.
Supreme Court of India Cites 93 - Cited by 160 - B V Nagarathna - Full Document

Rajat Prasad vs C.B.I on 24 April, 2014

(Emphasis supplied) The Delhi High Court holds that media plays an important role in a democratic society and act of the fourth estate outside the Government is necessary. But, sting operations involving people to commit crimes which otherwise they would not have committed 4 2008 SCC OnLine Del 711 49 would display the ugly underbelly of the society, but entrapment of any person should not be resorted to and cannot be permitted unless a right approach is taken which is in accordance with law of the land. This finding of the Delhi High Court is affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of RAJAT PRASAD (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 30 - R Gogoi - Full Document

Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013

119. Even proceeding on the basis that on petitioners' complaint, an FIR must be registered as it purports to disclose cognizable offences and the Court must so direct, will it not be a futile exercise having regard to section 17-A. I am, therefore, of the view that though otherwise the petitioners in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018 may have made out a case, having regard to the law actually laid down in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524], and more importantly, Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in a review petition, the petitioners cannot succeed. However, it is my view that the judgment sought to be reviewed, would not stand in the way of the first respondent in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018 from taking action on Ext. P-1, complaint in accordance with law and subject to first respondent obtaining previous approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act." The Apex Court has considered the importance of previous approval of the Competent Authority in the afore-extracted judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 18813 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

N. Vijayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 February, 2021

13. Even the issue of presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act has been answered by the Constitution Bench by holding that only on proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the Court to raise a presumption that illegal gratification was for the purpose of motive or reward as mentioned in Section 7 (as it existed prior to the amendment of 2018). In fact, the Constitution Bench has approved two decisions by the benches of three Hon'ble 65 Judges in the cases of B. Jayaraj and P. Satyanarayana Murthy. There is another decision of a three Judges' bench in the case of N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, which follows the view taken in the cases of B. Jayaraj and P. Satyanarayana Murthy. In paragraph 9 of the decision in the case of B. Jayaraj, this Court has dealt with the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. In paragraph 9, this Court held thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 125 - R S Reddy - Full Document
1