Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.59 seconds)Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
A K Ganju vs Cbi on 22 November, 2013
46.This Court has gone through the judgment of A.K. Ganju (Supra).
The judgment in the said case is a fact based judgment. The
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the said case found that there is no
evidence to support the prosecution case under Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and rest of the offences are for the violation
of MCD Act which have not been notified to the CBI for
investigation under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and as such the charge sheet was quashed. In the said case,
the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has made the observations in the
light of the set of the facts of the said case only and those set of
facts are different from the set of the facts involved in the present
case inasmuch as in the present case, there were direct allegations
against the accused persons for commission of offence under
Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra Tr.C.B.I vs Mahesh G.Jain on 28 May, 2013
In terms of the
law laid in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs.
CC No.385/19 CBI Vs. Anil Kumar & Anrs. Page 21 of 81
Mahesh G. Jain (Supra), it is proved on record that the
Sanctioning Authorities prima facie reached to the satisfaction that
the relevant facts constituted the offences in question. Even
otherwise, sanction orders are not to be construed either in pedantic
manner or by any hypertechnical approach to test their validity.
Hence, it is proved on record that the sanction orders Ex. PW1/A
and Ex. PW2/A vide which sanctions for prosecution were
accorded against A1 Anil Kumar (AE) and A2 Surendra Kumar
(JE), were valid.