Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.73 seconds)Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra vs Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede on 29 July, 2009
18. Learned senior counsel invited attention of this court to Exhibit
54 which is a statement of accused recorded immediately after his
arrest. The defence taken is of taking hand loan. This statement is
immediately recorded on being asked by ACB officer as to for what
purpose he has accepted the amount. Even investigating officer does
not deny the contents of statement Exhibit 54 to be false. As such,
though there is presumption available under Section 20 of PC Act,
accused is expected to offer an explanation and if the explanation is
probabilized, then the same needs to be considered. Such law is spelt
out in State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Laxmanrao Wankhede
(supra) and Mahesh Ramesh Jadhav (supra), relied by learned senior
counsel.
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
P.Satyanarayana Murthy vs Dist.Insp.Of Police & Anr on 14 September, 2015
Subash Parbat Sonvane vs State Of Gujarat on 24 April, 2002
5. Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat AIR 2003 SC 2169.
M.R.Purshotham vs State Of Karnataka on 16 September, 2014
6. M. R. Purushotham v. State of Karnataka (2015) 3 SCC 247.
Ayyasamy And Another vs State Through The Inspector Of Police ... on 2 August, 1995
7. Ayyasamy and another v. State through the Inspector of Police
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Erode 1996 Cri.L.J. 119.
Mohd. Iqbal, Ahmad vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 January, 1979
8. Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P. AIR 1979 SC 677.
C.M.Girish Babu vs Cbi, Cochin, High Court Of Kerala on 24 February, 2009
11. C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009)3
SCC 779.