Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.33 seconds)Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 344 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ram Chander vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 4 May, 2009
20. Reliance is placed on Ram Chander v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi),
reported at 2009 CRL.L.J. 4058, more particularly para 23 by learned
counsel for the State, to show that in order to prove the demand of
money, the testimony of the complainant as well as from the complaint
made by him, if proved in accordance with law, can be relied upon.
Relevant portion of para 23 reads as under:
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
State Of Maharashtra vs Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede on 29 July, 2009
16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua
non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act.
For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an
offence, viz., demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of
illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take
into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the
record in their entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably, the
presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 of the Act,
must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it
is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-a-vis the
standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ.
Before, however, the accused is called upon to explain as to how
the amount in question was found in his possession, the
foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Even
Crl.A.432-2006 Page 12 of 20
while invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is
required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any,
only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on
the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt."
Banarsi Dass vs State Of Haryana on 5 April, 2010
45. It would be useful to reproduce the observations made by the Supreme
Court of India in the case of Banarasi Dass v. State of Haryana,
reported at (2010) 4 SCC 450 wherein the Apex Court has reiterated that
the conviction of the accused cannot be founded on the basis of inference
and offence should be proved against an accused beyond reasonable
doubt either by direct evidence or even by circumstantial evidence: