Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.29 seconds)Ayyasami vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 November, 1991
In AIR 1992 SC 644 in the case of Ayyasami
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has laid down the proposition as under:
M.K. Harshan vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 1995
In 1995 Crl.L.J. 3978 in the case of M K
Harshan Vs. State of Kerala, it is held as under:
The State Of Karnataka vs B T Hanumanthappa S/O Thimmanna on 23 September, 2010
In 2006(3) KCCR 1445 in the case of State of
Karnataka Vs. K T Hanumanthaiah this Court has
33
laid down the proposition that 'there should be
independent corroboration for proving the case of
demand and acceptance of bribe for the offence under
Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act'.
State By Lokayuktha Police Mandya vs K M Gangadhar S/O Mallashetty on 11 March, 2008
In other two decisions reported in 2004(2)
KCCR 1233 in the case of D Rajendran Vs. State by
Police Inspector, B.O.I. and 2008(2) KCCR 985 in the
case of State by Lokayuktha Police, Mandya Vs. K M
Gangadhar of this Court their Lordships' have ruled
that corroboration from independent witness is
34
necessary and recovery of notes from the pocket of
accused and his hands being tested positive itself is
not sufficient to hold that accused demanded illegal
gratification from the complainant and received the
same.
Suraj Mal vs State (Delhi Administration) on 13 February, 1979
In the decision reported in AIR 1979 SC 1408
in the case of Suraj Mal Vs. The State (Delhi
Administration)) at synopsis B this Court has laid
down the proposition that 'mere recovery of money
from accused is not sufficient'.