Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.04 seconds)Section 3 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Gopalbhai Oghadbhai Parekh vs State Of Gujarat on 17 August, 2000
20. I
have perused the decision in the case of Gopalbhai Oghadbhai Parekh
Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002(1) GLR 89. The facts of that
case are totally applicable to the facts of the present case. In the
case on hand, the complainant has not properly explained about
acceptance of the bribe money on the part of accused, but the
complaint lodged by the complainant is clearly revealed that the
accused made demand of Rs.10000/- towards illegal gratification and
looking to the marks of anthracene powder on the body of the accused
as also on the pant of the accused, it is clearly established that
the accused on his own, accepted the bribe amount. The panchnama also
supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, this Court cannot
ignore the evidence of other witnesses.
Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Jitendrakumar Jayantilal Dhruva vs State Of Gujarat on 10 May, 2005
I have also perused the
decision in the case of Jitendrakumar Jayantilal Dhruva Vs. State of
Gujarat reported in 2005(3) GLR 2204. For the said aspect, if the
oral evidence of P.W.4 Jayantilal Ichhchhubhai Patel at Exhibit 20 is
carefully taken into consideration, the sanction was accorded by the
competent Authority and therefore, the submission of learned advocate
regarding sanction is not just and proper.