Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
C Sukumaran vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2015
12.In support of the submission, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused relied upon the Judgment in the case of C.Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2015) 11 Supreme Court Cases 314. The other submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the investigation done by the Inspector of Police itself is contrary to the Government Order as well as the statute and the Vigilance Manual Rule.
Smt. J. Yashoda vs Smt. K. Shobha Rani on 19 April, 2007
24.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt.J.Yashoda vs. Smt.K.Shobha Rani reported in AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1721(1) contended that Ex.P6 being a photocopy, it should not be admitted as a evidence without comparing the original. As pointed earlier, based on the application, the Tahsildar office has proceeded the application and the evidences such as Ex.P4, P8, P13, P14, P15 indicate that the application has been acted upon by the Tahsildar office. Since the application has been acted upon and proved throgh records, the admission of Ex.P6 a photocopy has no bearing in proving the case of demand and acceptance of bribe.
Section 428 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1