Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.33 seconds)Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 157 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Bihar & Ors vs Rajmangal Ram on 31 March, 2014
In the case of State of Bihar and others Vs
Rajmangal Ram, at paragraph 9 and 10, the Apex Court has
held as under:
Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Neeraj Dutta vs State(Govt.Of N.C.T.Of Delhi) on 15 December, 2022
NC: 2026:KHC:21692
CRL.A No. 95 of 2013
HC-KAR
establishing the guilt against the accused No.2 as held by the
Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Govt. of
N.C.T of Delhi) reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 280.
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 3 September, 1997
NC: 2026:KHC:21692
CRL.A No. 95 of 2013
HC-KAR
CBI Vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, Mansukhlal, Vithaldas
Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat, Ameer Jan Vs State of
Karnataka supra. The principles laid down in the said
judgments regarding accused being entitled to raise the issue
with regard to validity of the sanction even at the stage of
appeal cannot be disputed. The further principle laid down in
the said judgments with regard to requirement of application of
mind by the sanctioning authority also cannot be disputed. The
argument of learned Senior counsel for accused in the instant
case with reference to the sanction order is with reference to
the deposition of the PW7 found at paragraph 6 which read as
under:
Section 19 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The State Of Karnataka vs C. Lasumanaik S/O Chandya Naik on 22 June, 2017
19. Learned counsel for the accused relied upon the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs C.Lasumanaik in Criminal Appeal
No.100230/2015 dated 22.06.2017 wherein the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court at paragraph 15 has held that "the
defence of the accused that he never demanded the bribe
amount and it was forcibly thrusted into his hand by the
complainant himself and during the course of the proceeding it
has come on record that the accused insisted the Investigation
Officer to seize/produce the tape recorder, which will go to
prove his defence. It is his consistent case that had the
prosecution produced the tape recorder before the Court, it
would have been established that he never demanded the bribe
amount and therefore non production of the tape recorder also
taken away the opportunity of the defence to prove his
defence." Referring to this observation of Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court and learned Senior counsel vehemently submitted,
even the instant case, had the prosecution produced the tape
recorder, it would have revealed the actual conversation that
had taken place between the complainant and the accused
persons. Perhaps to hide or shield this evidence, the
Nanjappa vs State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2015
21. The other ground raised is with regard to grant of
sanction. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the cases of Nanjappa Vs State of Karnataka,