Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
B.Jayaraj vs State Of A.P on 28 March, 2014
In the case of B.Jayaraj (supra) it was observed that so
far as offence u/s 7 is concerned, it is settled position that demand of
illegal gratification is sine-qua-non to constitute the offence and
mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence u/s 7,
unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused
voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be a bribe.
Section 374 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
A. Subair vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2009
In the case of A.Subair (supra) it was observed that the essential
ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act are that the accused
should be public servant, he should have used corrupt or illegal
means or otherwise abused his position as public servant and obtain
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other
person. The primary requisite of offence u/s 13(1)(d) of the Act is
proof of demand or request for valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage by the public servant. In the absence of proof of demand,
the request from the public servant for a valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage, the offence u/s 13(1)(d) cannot be held to be
established.
Sri. Sujit Biswas vs State Of Assam on 28 May, 2013
In Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam (2013)12-SCC-406, it is
held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take place of proof and
the prosecution cannot afford to rest it's case in the realm of "may
be" true but has to upgrade it in the domain of "must be" true in
order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. The Court
must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts
and circumstances two views are plausible, then benefit of doubt
must be given to the accused.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Motiram Jaisingh Pawar vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 March, 1985
In the case of Motiram Pawar (supra), this Court has observed that it
is well settled in the matter of trap cases, particularly when the
initial part or the genesis of the story of demand and negotiations is
found to be untrustworthy, then the entire prosecution case must fail
as the testimony of the complainant by itself can never be accepted.
1