Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.96 seconds)The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 2 in The Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Sattan @ Satyendra & Ors on 27 February, 2009
5. After hearing both the sides, I am of the opinion that while
dealing with the question of sentence in an authority reported as State
of UP Vs. Sattan @ Satyendra and Others 2009 III AD (SC) 492,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 14 as under:
Remo Paul Altoe vs Union Of India on 13 October, 1977
Ld.
Senior PP for CBI has further stated that judgments cited before me
are (i) Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 1977, Title: Reno Paul Altoe Vs.
Union of India, (ii) Criminal Misc. (Main) Appeal No. 1372 of 1996, Title:
Randhir Singh And Ors. vs Director Of Revenue Intelligence on 28 August, 1985
Sudhir Kumar Dhingra Vs. Unior Of India and (iii) Civil Revision
Miscellaneous (Main) Appeal No. 496 of 1985 and Civil Revision
Appeal No. 131 of 1985, title: Randhir Singh and Ors. Vs. Director of
Revenue Intellegence and V.P. Verma Vs. Mal Singh are different and
are relevant to Customs's Act and have no relevance to cases of
Disproportionate Assets. Ld. Counsel for accused also states that
without prejudice to his rights in case any order regarding confiscation
of the property is passed towards amount held to be disproportionate to
the known source of income of the accused, the Court may instead of
attaching the immovable properties of the accused may give option of
depositing cash amount towards the same. Ld. Counsel for accused
also states that FDRs which are also on record may be confiscated and
encashed without prejudice to his rights.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 5 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
State Of Maharashtra vs Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar on 6 May, 1981
Reference can be placed on the decision in State of
Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar" AIR 1981 SC 1186.
Law Regarding Explanation of accused: