Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.48 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
B.Jayaraj vs State Of A.P on 28 March, 2014
13.6.3 In the case of B. Jayaraj (supra) complainant did not
support the case of prosecution and no other witness had been
examined to prove acceptance of bribe pursuant to demand. Only on
the recovery of tainted currency notes from the possession of the
accused, he had been convicted. In the present case, as discussed in
paras 8 to 12 above there is ample proof of demand, acceptance and
State Vs. Sunil Kumar Page 27 of 31
28
recovery of bribe from the possession of the accused.
Hari Singh Yadav vs State on 18 February, 2014
In the case of Hari Singh Yadav (Supra),
the statement of complainant was found inconsistent and un
trustworthy and the panch witness had failed to support the case of the
prosecution, having resiled from his previous statement. In the present
case, as discussed in paras 11.4 above, complainant has deliberately
made false statement before the court on oath and is, therefore, not
entirely trustworthy. However, he has broadly supported the case of
prosecution and has not disputed the correctness of documents
prepared during the investigation viz his complaint, seizure memo and
raid reports. Contrary to the cited case, panch witness in the presence
case has fully supported the case of the prosecution.
Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Rakesh Kapoor vs State Of H.P on 22 November, 2012
13.6.5 Rakesh Kapoor's case (Supra) has been relied upon by ld.
defence counsel to argue that the call detail record has not been proved
to support the allegation of demand of bribe on phone.
M. P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh vs The State Of M. P. And Anr on 27 February, 1985
I am, therefore, of
the opinion that law laid down in M.P.Singh's case (supra) case does not
help the accused.
1