Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Mukhtiar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 5 July, 2016
In the case of Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2017) 8 SCC 136, the Hon'ble Apex Court while referring to several earlier judgments has held as follows:-
Suraj Dev S/O Nankesar vs The State (Delhi Admn) [Along With Crl. ... on 11 March, 2005
In Suraj Mal Vs. State Delhi Admn), this Court took the view that (at SCC P.727, para 2) mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe."
State Of Kerala & Anr vs C.P. Rao on 16 May, 2011
Carrying this enunciation further, it was exposited in State of Kerala vs. C.P. Rao that mere recovery by itself of the amount said to have been paid by way of illegal gratification would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained.
C.M.Girish Babu vs Cbi, Cochin, High Court Of Kerala on 24 February, 2009
19. After referring to Suraj Mal Vs. State 9Delhi Admn), in C.M.Girish Babu V. CBI, it was held as under: (SCC P.784, para 18)
Mukut Bihari & Anr vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 May, 2012
21. While dealing with the contention that it is not enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public servant to make it illegal gratification and that the prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid was an illegal gratification, reference can be made to the following observation in Mukut Biharai V. State of Rajasthan, where it was held as under: (SCC PP. 645-46, para 11).