Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.72 seconds)State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
Learned
counsel for the petitioner, based on the ratio in State of
Haryana v Bhajan Lal (A.I.R 1992 SC 604), contended that
the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C should be
invoked to do justice in this case.
Pepsu Road Transport Corp., Patiala vs Mangal Singh & Ors on 12 May, 2011
Further, it is argued on the
basis of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v.
Mangal Singh and Others ((2011)11 SCC 702) that the
departmental direction permitting the petitioner to do private
practice cannot be disregarded and he cannot be prosecuted for
accepting money for professional services beyond his office
hours. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that a full
Crl.M.C No.774 of 2013 3
fledged trap has been laid in this case and he was caught red
handed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
the stage of investigation in this matter, I am not satisfied that
this is a fit case wherein the jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C can be invoked to terminate the proceedings. The
petitioner is however free to raise appropriate contention before
the trial court and argue for a discharge. The court will consider
the contention untrammelled by any observation in this order.
With this observation, the Crl.M.C is disposed.
Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Dr. K.L. Anand vs The State on 29 February, 1956
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted on the
Crl.M.C No.774 of 2013 2
basis of Annexure A5 that the petitioner, as a Veterinary
Surgeon, is entitled to undertake private practice as per the
instructions in AHD Manual. It is also submitted on the basis of
Dr.K.L.Anand v. The State (A.I.R 1956 Allahabad 673) that
medical officer is entitled to do private practice and he is
entitled to accept money for the professional service.
1