Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
Mohd. Nazeeruddin vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 January, 1994 cites

The Crown Prosecutor vs R.K. Pillai And Anr. on 3 March, 1947

The appellant-accused had no business to demand for 10% contribution for meeting audit party expenses and PW-1 was under no obligation to pay the same and rightly PW-1 complained to the ACB party who laid the trap which proved to be positive. If the plea of the appellant-accused is accepted, the courts of law would be granting a licence for the collection of such illegal amounts under the guise that the same is not illegal gratification, but is a legal remuneration. The amount demanded by the appellant-accused and paid by PW-1 was certainly an illegal gratification and is not a legal remuneration and and S. 7 of the Act is attracted. My view is that the amount collected in the instant case is an illegal gratification for doing favour of issuing a cheque which PW-1 was entitled as of right, is fortified by the decisions in Crown Prosecutor v. R. K. Pillai, (1948) 49 Cri LJ 265 : AIR 1948 Mad 281; B. K. Sen v. Rajeshwari Prasad, (1945) 46 Cri LJ 748 : AIR 1945 Pat 258; In re Vardadesikachariar, and In re M. S. Mohiddin, .
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1