Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.24 seconds)
Mani vs State Of Tamilnadu on 2 January, 2024 cites

B.Jayaraj vs State Of A.P on 28 March, 2014

In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the imperative prerequisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B. Jayaraj [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It has been propounded that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 39 the Act. Qua Section 20 of the Act, which permits a presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while it is extendable only to an offence under Section 7 and not to those under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, it is contingent as well on the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it was emphasised, could follow only if there was proof of demand. Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 511 - R Gogoi - Full Document

A. Subair vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2009

"20. This Court in A. Subair v. State of Kerala [(2009) 6 SCC 587 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 85] , while dwelling on the purport of the statutory prescription of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act ruled that (at SCC p. 593, para 28) the prosecution has to prove the charge thereunder beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and that the accused should be considered to be innocent till it is established otherwise by proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are vital ingredients necessary to be proved to record a conviction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 398 - R M Lodha - Full Document

State Of Kerala & Anr vs C.P. Rao on 16 May, 2011

In State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao [(2011) 6 SCC 450 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1010 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 714] , this Court, reiterating its earlier dictum, vis-à-vis the same offences, held that mere recovery by itself, would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 38 that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 379 - Full Document
1   2 Next