Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.45 seconds)Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Swatantar Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 3 March, 1997
It is difficult to accept the prayer of the respondent
that a lenient view be taken in this case. The corruption
by public servants has become a gigantic problem. It has
spread everywhere. No facet of public activity has been
left unaffected by the stink of corruption. It has deep and
pervasive impact on the functioning of the entire country.
Large scale corruption retards the national building
activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. As
has been aptly observed in Swatantar Singh v. State of
Haryana reported in (1997) 4 SCC 14, corruption is
corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of
the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public
service and demoralizing the honest officers. The
efficiency in public service would improve only when the
public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the
duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself
assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post.
The reputation of corrupt would gather thick and
unchaseably clouds around the conduct of the officer and
gain notoriety much faster than the smoke.
Hazari Lal vs Delhi Administration on 15 February, 1980
This Court in Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi
Administration) reported in (1980) 2 SCC 390, observed
that where the recovery of money coupled with other
circumstances lead to the conclusion that the respondent
received gratification from some person, the Court would
certainly draw a presumption under Section 4(1) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. In the instant case, the
recovery of 35 notes of the denomination of 100 is fully
proved by Badan Singh PW1 and two other independent
witnesses Aditya Chobey PW6 and Surender Rai Sharma
PW11.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1