Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.40 seconds)The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rakesh Bisht vs Central Bureau Of Investigation [Along ... on 3 January, 2007
59 It is interesting to note that as far as eavesdropping
instrument is concerned, even as per admitted case of prosecution, it
developed some snag and stopped working. PW5 P.V.K. Raja, who was
present in the CBI office throughout and who was to hear the
conversation once eavesdropping instrument was made active, deposed
that they had heard voice on such instrument for some time then it
stopped. Such conversation was up to the moment when complainant
was going to meet accused Pradeep Verma and then again
eavesdropping instrument had been connected and dialled and then it
started operating and there was conversation for 10/15/20 minutes.
However, such fact is not in consonance with CBI case. According to
CBI, there was never second activation and once, it went out of order, it
could not be made active. But PW5 P.V.K. Raja has something else to
say.
Section 2 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Banarsi Dass vs State Of Haryana on 5 April, 2010
In
BANARSI DASS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AIR 2010 SC 1589, it has
been observed that firstly, there must be a demand and secondly there
must be acceptance in the sense that the accused has obtained the
illegal gratification. It was also held that mere demand by itself was not
sufficient to establish the offence.
Section 8 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Mubarakali vs The State on 28 November, 1957
67 However, as far as Section 7 of PC Act is concerned,
Legislature has used word 'agrees to accept' or 'attempts to obtain' as
well. Learned PP has contended that deposition of complainant at least
reflects that there was demand of money and, therefore, as far as
Section 7 of PC Act is concerned, even if there is no acceptance,
accused are liable to be held guilty as they had agreed to accept the
bribe. He has placed his reliance upon MUBARAKALI VS. STATE 1958
CR.L.J. 764 MP..