Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.03 seconds)
X.Victor De Rose vs State Represented By on 2 December, 2020 cites

Mukut Bihari & Anr vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 May, 2012

21. I am not persuaded by the aforesaid submission of the learned Senior counsel. As pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 11 SCC 642 (Mukut Bihari V. State of Rajasthan) answers atleast two of the contentions raised by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant. It has been clearly held in the said case that the acceptance of submission of the accused that the complainant's version required corroboration in all circumstances, in abstract would encourage the bribe taker to receive illegal gratification in privacy and then insist for corroboration for the case of the prosecution. Only if the evidence is found to be unreliable or there is contradiction, corroboration may be necessary. Likewise non-observance of the instructions in the Vigilance manual will not vitiate the proceedings. They are merely instructions and guidelines and they do not have statutory force and therefore non-observance thereof would not vitiate the proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 107 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

V.Sejappa vs State By Police Insp.Lokayukta on 12 April, 2016

In this regard, the learned Senior counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2016) 12 SCC 150(V.Sejappa V. State) and also http://www.judis.nic.in 16 an unreported decision of this Court made in Crl.A.(MD)No. 262 and 272 of 2014 dated 11.05.2020. He would contend that there was absolutely no demand whatsoever by the appellant for payment of any illegal gratification. The learned Senior counsel would deny that there was any meeting between the accused and the defacto complainant on 29.08.2002 at about 8.00 p.m. in the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer as claimed by the prosecution. According to the defence, the accused conducted two inquests on the said date. After conducting the same, the accused reached his office only at 9.30 p.m and thereafter, straightaway went home.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 14 - Cited by 173 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1