Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.21 seconds)Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Subash Parbat Sonvane vs State Of Gujarat on 24 April, 2002
In Subash's case, the complainant did not support the prose-
cution version of demand and acceptance of the amount but in the
present case, the complainant Rooplal (PW7) was emphatic in stat-
ing that the amount was paid as against the demand made by the
appellant.
T. Subramanian vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 January, 2006
As such, the ratio laid down in T.
Subramanian's case is not applicable to the facts of the instant
case.
Girja Prasad (Dead) By Lrs vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 August, 2007
18. Further, Inspector Naresh Kumar (PW10) not only substantial-
ly reiterated contents of the pre-trap panchnama (Ex.P-10) but also
corroborated the circumstances leading to recovery of tainted cur-
rency notes from the right pocket of appellant's trousers as reflected
in the post-trap panchnama (Ex.P-15). Nothing could be elicited in
his cross-examination so as to suggest that he was, in any way, in-
terested in securing the convictions of the appellant on absolutely
false grounds. His evidence could not be rejected solely on the
ground that he was concerned with the success of the trap. The pre-
sumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour
of a Police Official as any other person (See. Girja Prasad v. State
of M.P. AIR 2007 SC 3106).
Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 September, 1962
26. Mudholkar, J., speaking for a four-judge Bench of the Apex
Court in Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra
AIR 1964 SC 575, observed that when an accused is shown to have
accepted money, which was not legal remuneration, the
presumption can be raised and the rebuttal must be by explanation
which must be true and not merely plausible.
V.D.Jhangan vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 3 March, 1966
However, as further
explained in V. D. Jhingan v. State of U.P. AIR 1966 SC 1762 and
reiterated in M. Abbas's case (supra), it is not necessary that the
accused should establish his case by the test of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt and he has to establish his case by a
preponderance of probability as is done by a party in civil
proceedings.
Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 November, 2000
28. As observed by the Supreme Court in Madhukar Bhaskarrao
Joshi v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2001 SC 147 -
N. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000
29. Re-affirming the aforesaid principle in M. Narsinga Rao v.
State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2001 SC 318, a three judge Bench of
the Apex Court has further opined -