Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.34 seconds)The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 6A in The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
State Of Rajasthan vs Govind Ram Bagdiya And Ors. on 21 December, 2002
I have considered the said argument and perused the said verdict State of Rajasthan Vs. Govind Bagdiya & others ( supra). The Rajasthan High Court has observed that evidence on record showed that the allotment was as per law. Nothing gain was obtained by accused persons or there was any wrongful loss to the Municipal Board and no conspiracy between the accused persons proved hence acquittal of the accused persons was proper.
R. P. Kapur vs The State Of Punjab on 25 March, 1960
The Hon'ble Apex Court in its verdict State of Punjab & others Vs. Indra Mohan Chopra & others (supra) while considering and discussing its earlier verdict given in R.P.Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960, SC 866 has observed that in dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge.
Rampal Pithwa Rahidas And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 March, 1989
In the third verdict Rampal Pithwa Rahidas & others Vs State of Maharashtra(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the duty of the Investigating agency is to act honestly and fairly and not resort to fabricating false evidence only with a view to secure conviction
In the present matter the FIR was registered by the CBI after preliminary enquiry conducted in the matter and thereafter a thorough and detailed investigation has been conducted and charge sheet has been submitted.
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Inder Mohan Chopra & Ors on 12 February, 2009
The Hon'ble Apex Court in its verdict State of Punjab & others Vs. Indra Mohan Chopra & others (supra) while considering and discussing its earlier verdict given in R.P.Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960, SC 866 has observed that in dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge.