Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.26 seconds)Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 February, 1993
In Amrik Singh's case (supra), the shadow witness and the
complainant were related to each other and this fact was concealed by
the prosecution which cast a serious doubt as to the version of the
prosecution. The independent witness was not examined. Moreover, the
mutation for which the bribe was allegedly demanded was already
sanctioned.
Sat Pal vs Delhi Administration on 29 September, 1975
In the
judgments rendered in Sat Paul's case (supra), Pritam Singh's case
(supra) and Anand Parkash's case (supra) are also of no help to the
appellant in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Hazari Lal's case (supra) and Zakaullah's case (supra).
Maharaja Kumar Kharak Singh (Dead) ... vs State Of Punjab on 9 May, 1995
14. He further contended that what to talk of any independent
corroboration, even the shadow witness in this case has not supported
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
2015.05.07 17:08
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Criminal Appeal No. S-2125-SB of 2006 8
the prosecution version. It demolished the entire case of the
prosecution. The story of the prosecution regarding the raid was not
trustworthy. To support his contentions, he relied upon cases Satpal
Singh (died) through L.Rs v. State of Punjab 2004(1) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 830, R.V.Subha Rao v. State represented by Inspector of
Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kakinada Range 2005(4) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 716 (A.P.)
Pritam Singh vs State Of Haryana on 15 March, 1971
In the
judgments rendered in Sat Paul's case (supra), Pritam Singh's case
(supra) and Anand Parkash's case (supra) are also of no help to the
appellant in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Hazari Lal's case (supra) and Zakaullah's case (supra).
Roshan Subhash Hemke vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 August, 2014
16. He further contended that mere positive result of
phenolphthalein test is not enough to establish the case. To support his
contentions, he relied upon case Meena(Smt.) wife of Balwant Hemke
v. State of Maharashtra, 2000(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 661.
Banshi Lal Yadav vs State Of Bihar on 16 March, 1981
19. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that when
the demand and acceptance of the bribe is not established, the
presumption under Section 20 of the Act is not attracted. To support his
contentions, he relied upon the case Banshi Lal Yadav v. State of
Bihar AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1235. Thus, he pleaded that the
conviction of the appellant has been wrongly recorded by the learned
Special Judge.,
Hazari Lal vs Delhi Administration on 15 February, 1980
In the
judgments rendered in Sat Paul's case (supra), Pritam Singh's case
(supra) and Anand Parkash's case (supra) are also of no help to the
appellant in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Hazari Lal's case (supra) and Zakaullah's case (supra).