Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.09 seconds)
Gurpreet Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 20 February, 2024 cites

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

(ii) It is also a matter of record and as also not controverted rather candidly admitted by the learned counsel for the CBI that despite the availability of call recording apparatus , the phone call conversation between the complainant and the accused on 28th of August 2007, where in again demand of bribe was made by the accused, and that too when the complainant was present inside the office of the CBI, coupled with the fact that the CBI had already been informed about the demand of bribe by the complainant, the telephonic conversation was not even recorded, nor was the conversation heard by any person much less by the members of the trap team, as the phone of the complainant was not even put on "speaker". Hon'ble the Supreme Court while dealing with a similar question in Neeraj Datta's case (supra), held that while dealing with an issue of proof of demand within the meaning of Section 7 of the P.C. Act, it cannot be a simpliciter demand for money, but it has to be a demand of gratification other than legal remuneration. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Soundarajan Versus State 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 314 held that to attract Section 7 of the P.C. Act, the demand of gratification has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It was further observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that there has to be a demand of gratification. It is not a simple demand of money, but has to be a demand of gratification.
Supreme Court of India Cites 93 - Cited by 160 - B V Nagarathna - Full Document
1   2 Next