Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.38 seconds)
K.Muhammed vs State Of Kerala on 26 August, 2011 cites

Panalal Damodar Rathi vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 January, 1979

26. The learned counsel for the accused has relied Crl.A.No.1095 of 2001 -: 29 :- upon the decision in Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra [(1979) 4 SCC 526] to fortify his submission that there is no evidence regarding the demand alleged to have been made by the accused. In the aforesaid decision it was held that when there is no corroboration of testimony of the complainant regarding the demand of bribe by the accused it has to be accepted that the version of the complainant is not corroborated and therefore, it cannot be relied on. Here, though PWs.1 and 2 did not fully support the prosecution the evidence given by PW1 and the contemporaneous records prepared by PW20 and the circumstances detailed earlier are sufficient to hold that the accused voluntarily accepted the bribe money. The circumstances would justify the court to draw the inference that the accused obtained the pecuniary advantage voluntarily and on demand. There was no case for the accused that he happened to receive the currency notes inadvertently or mistakenly. That apart, the conduct of the Crl.A.No.1095 of 2001 -: 30 :- accused as has been narrated earlier would also negative the plea raised by the defence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 187 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

Hari Dev Sharma vs State (Delhi Administration) on 4 May, 1976

28. The learned Prosecutor would submit that since the witness was undergoing treatment as a mentally ill person there was no purpose in sending notice again and hence the court below found that it was only a delaying tactics. Seeking examination of a witness for which no foundation was actually laid by the accused would be of no help since the credibility or acceptability of the evidence led by the prosecution had already been tested by the incisive cross examination made by the defence counsel. Therefore, the fact that on getting the report that the witness was lying ill as a mentally ill person the summons was not repeated will not in any way come to the rescue of the accused. The decision in Hari Dev Sharma v. State (Delhi Administration) [(1977) 3 SCC 352] is also not applicable Crl.A.No.1095 of 2001 -: 32 :- to the facts of this case since here the court has not disbelieved the essential and vital part of the prosecution case. There is the uncontroverted evidence that when the accused dipped his fingers in lime water it turned pink in colour. The accused himself showed gestures that the currency notes were kept by him in the drawer of his office table and it was from there the notes were taken out by PW3, the Tahasildar as directed by PW20. Hence the learned Special judge was impressed by that evidence to hold that the bribe money was voluntarily accepted by the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 43 - A C Gupta - Full Document

Banarsi Dass vs State Of Haryana on 5 April, 2010

The decision in Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana [AIR 2010 SC 1589] is also to be distinguished since there is evidence and circumstances in this case to hold that there was demand and voluntary acceptance of the bribe. In the case Crl.A.No.1095 of 2001 -: 34 :- cited supra there was no cogent and reliable evidence to support the charge against the accused and even the recovery was not proved in accordance with law. Here each link of the chain of events is established pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The offence charged could be proved beyond reasonable doubt, by circumstantial evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 297 - S Kumar - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede on 29 July, 2009

"Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence viz. demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably, the Crl.A.No.1095 of 2001 -: 35 :- presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 of the Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-a-vis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ. Before, however, the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Even while invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 227 - S B Sinha - Full Document

N. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000

In Narsinga Rao's case the decision in Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1980) 2 SCC 390] was followed where it was held that it is not necessary that the passing of money should be proved by direct evidence. It can also be proved by circumstantial evidence. The events which followed in quick succession in the present case lead, as was held in that case, to the only inference that the money was obtained by the accused from PW3.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 239 - Full Document
1   2 Next