Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
P. Murugesan And Others vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 3 February, 1993
“10....Further in the judgment in the case of Murugesan & Ors Vs.
State through Inspector of Police (2012) 10 SCC 383, relied on by the
learned senior counsel for the appellant, this Court has considered the
powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal recorded by the
trial court. In the said judgment, it is categorically held by this Court that
only in cases where conclusion recorded by the trial court is not a possible
view, then only High Court can interfere and reverse the acquittal to that of
conviction. In the said judgment, distinction from that of “possible view” to
“erroneous view” or “wrong view” is explained. In clear terms, this Court
has held that if the view taken by the trial court is a “possible view”, High
Court not to reverse the acquittal to that of the conviction. The relevant
paragraphs in this regard where meaning and implication of “possible view”
distinguishing from “erroneous view” and “wrong view” is discussed.
Section 378 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Hakeem Khan & Ors vs State Of M.P on 22 March, 2017
11. By applying the above said principles and the evidence on
record in the case on hand, we are of the considered view that having
regard to material contradictions which we have already noticed above and
also as referred to in the trial court judgment, it can be said that acquittal is
a “possible view”. By applying the ratio as laid down by this Court in the
judgments which are stated supra, even assuming another view is possible,
same is no ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal and to
convict the appellant for the offence alleged. ...
B.Jayaraj vs State Of A.P on 28 March, 2014
CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779 and in the case of
B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55. In the aforesaid
judgments of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7,
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is
reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable
doubt that accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe.
Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or
recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In
the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section
20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal
gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption
of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal
recorded by the trial court.”
Page 22 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Section 7 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1