Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 52 (0.41 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 19 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Ram Singh & Ors vs Col. Ram Slngh on 7 August, 1985
42. The MCR used in the present case by PW6 to record the
conversation was not submitted to CFSL. Without the device
being examined and without the cassette itself being examined
for ruling out the possibility of tampering, one of the important
requirements spelt out in Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh was
not satisfied in the present case. This rendered the Q3 cassette
an inadmissible piece of evidence...‖
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
B. Noha vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 6 November, 2006
47. Learned counsel for the respondent had relied upon the judgment
of B. Noha v. State of Kerala (supra) wherein it was held by the Apex
Court that when voluntary and conscious acceptance of the money is
proved, there is no further burden cast on the prosecution to prove by
direct evidence, the demand or motive. Learned Trial Court has also
held on similar lines. However, in view of the previous discussion, this
legal proposition cannot be held to be applicable in the present case
since even the voluntary acceptance of bribe by the appellant has not
been proved beyond reasonable doubt.