Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.31 seconds)Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Lachman Dass vs State Of Punjab on 10 October, 1969
30. The decision in Lachman Dass v. State of
Punjab [AIR 1970 SC 450] is also to be distinguished since
in this case the circumstantial and documentary evidence
created no room for doubt and the defence version was
found to be improbable unlike in the case cited supra.
Banarsi Dass vs State Of Haryana on 5 April, 2010
The
decision in Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana [AIR 2010
SC 1589] is also to be distinguished since there is evidence
and circumstances in this case to hold that there was
demand and voluntary acceptance of the bribe. In the case
Crl.A.No.1095 of 2001
-: 34 :-
cited supra there was no cogent and reliable evidence to
support the charge against the accused and even the
recovery was not proved in accordance with law. Here each
link of the chain of events is established pointing towards
the guilt of the accused. The offence charged could be
proved beyond reasonable doubt, by circumstantial
evidence.
State Of Maharashtra vs Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede on 29 July, 2009
"Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine
qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions
of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all
the ingredients of an offence viz. demand, acceptance and
recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been
satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the
facts and circumstances brought on the record in their
entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably, the
Crl.A.No.1095 of 2001
-: 35 :-
presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 of the
Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in
respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof
on the accused vis-a-vis the standard of burden of proof on
the prosecution would differ. Before, however, the
accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in
question was found in his possession, the foundational
facts must be established by the prosecution. Even while
invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court
is required to consider the explanation offered by the
accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance
of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond
all reasonable doubt."
N. Narsinga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 December, 2000
In Narsinga Rao's case the decision in
Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1980) 2 SCC 390]
was followed where it was held that it is not necessary that
the passing of money should be proved by direct evidence.
It can also be proved by circumstantial evidence. The
events which followed in quick succession in the present
case lead, as was held in that case, to the only inference
that the money was obtained by the accused from PW3.
Raghubir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 28 March, 1974
It was held by the Apex Court in Raghubir
Singh v. State of Haryana [1974 SCC (Cri) 596] the three
Judges Bench observed that the very fact that the accused
was in possession of the marked currency notes against the
allegation that he demanded and received that amount is
Crl.A.No.1095 of 2001
-: 37 :-
"res ipsa loquitur".