Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 66 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Tej Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. on 8 December, 1989
It is true that in a bribery case, the Court should, while analysing the proof given by the prosecution, keep in mind 'the preponderance of probabilities and normal human behaviour' as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Tej Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 1990 (Supp.)SCC 125. Of course, the facts in this cited decision are substantially different. So it is not necessary to discuss the ratio of the cited decision.
Section 177 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Ganga Kumar Srivastava vs The State Of Bihar on 20 July, 2005
21. Shri Mangukiya has cited certain decisions in support of his submissions. The decision in the case of Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar , the Apex Court has discussed the settled the ratio. The Apex Court has observed that the Court need not depend on oral evidence which was something of a dubious character to decide the fate of accused public servant. In this cited decision, the Apex Court has turned down two concurrent findings of conviction and sentence holding them as 'not sustainable'. In this decision, the trapping officer had treated the muddamal currency notes with phenolphthalein powder but the complainant had emerged as a person involved in the theft of electricity. I have considered the tone of the finding of the Apex Court while evaluating the evidence of the complainant and treating his evidence as weak piece of evidence.
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Gulam Mahmood A. Malek vs State Of Gujarat on 10 June, 1980
22. The another decision relied upon by Shri Mangukiya is in the case of Gulam Mahmood A. Malek v. State of Gujarat reported in 21 GLR 965, whereby the Apex Court has observed that the background of the case should not be lost sight of in appreciating the evidence. In the present case, the learned trial Judge has not considered the background of the case at all.