Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.44 seconds)The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 162 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Zwinglee Ariel vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 December, 1952
The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on which
Shri Anthony placed reliance does not support his
contention. 'where the learned Judges were not prepared to
go into the question whether the evidence relating to the
conduct of the accused was admissible as that question did
not directly arise for consideration. On the other hand in
Zwinglee Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh(2), this Court
appeared to be inclined to hold that evidence to the effect
that the accused started trembling and showed signs of being
frightened on being;, questioned by the Police officer, if
proved, was admissible, and, in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and
Anr. v. State of Vindhya Pradesh(3), and, State of Madras v.
A. Vaidyanatha Iyer(4), this Court actually relied on
evidence relating to the conduct on the accused on being
confronted by the Police officer with the allegation that he
'had received a bribe.
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh And Another vs The State Of Vindhya Pradesh on 22 May, 1953
The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on which
Shri Anthony placed reliance does not support his
contention. 'where the learned Judges were not prepared to
go into the question whether the evidence relating to the
conduct of the accused was admissible as that question did
not directly arise for consideration. On the other hand in
Zwinglee Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh(2), this Court
appeared to be inclined to hold that evidence to the effect
that the accused started trembling and showed signs of being
frightened on being;, questioned by the Police officer, if
proved, was admissible, and, in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and
Anr. v. State of Vindhya Pradesh(3), and, State of Madras v.
A. Vaidyanatha Iyer(4), this Court actually relied on
evidence relating to the conduct on the accused on being
confronted by the Police officer with the allegation that he
'had received a bribe.
The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957
The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on which
Shri Anthony placed reliance does not support his
contention. 'where the learned Judges were not prepared to
go into the question whether the evidence relating to the
conduct of the accused was admissible as that question did
not directly arise for consideration. On the other hand in
Zwinglee Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh(2), this Court
appeared to be inclined to hold that evidence to the effect
that the accused started trembling and showed signs of being
frightened on being;, questioned by the Police officer, if
proved, was admissible, and, in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and
Anr. v. State of Vindhya Pradesh(3), and, State of Madras v.
A. Vaidyanatha Iyer(4), this Court actually relied on
evidence relating to the conduct on the accused on being
confronted by the Police officer with the allegation that he
'had received a bribe.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 8 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Darshan Lal vs The Delhi Administration on 20 November, 1973
We are unable to agree with the submission of Shri
Anthony that no conviction can ever be based on the
uncorroborated testimony of a person in the position of
P.W.6 who, for the sake of felicity may be described as a
"trap witness'. That a trap witness may perhaps be
considered as a person interested in the success of the trap
may entitle a Court to view his evidence as that of an
interested witness. Where the circumstances justify it, a
Court may refuse to act upon the uncorroborated testimony of
a trap witness. On the other hand a Court may well be
justified in acting upon the uncorroborated testimony of a
trap witness if the Court is satisfied from the facts and
circumstances of the case that the witness is a witness of
truth. Shri Anthony referred us to the decisions of this
Court in Ram Prakash Arora v. The State of Punjab,(1) and
Darshan Lal v. The Delhi Administration.(3) In the first
case Grover, J., observed as follows: