Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.35 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Major E. G. Barsay vs The State Of Bombay on 24 April, 1961
In Major EG Barsay v. State of
Bombay, AIR (1961) SC 1762, Subba Rao J., speaking for the Court has said:
Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 477A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 403 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 1970
The suspicion can not take the place of a legal proof and prosecution would
be required to prove each and every circumstance in the chain of
circumstances so as to complete the chain. It is true that in most of the
cases, it is not possible to prove the agreement between the conspirators
by direct evidence but the same can be inferred from the circumstances
giving rise to conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between
two or more persons to commit an offence. It is held in Noor Mohd. v. State
of Maharashtra, AIR (1971) SC 885, that:
State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) vs Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru on 4 August, 2005
The High Court completely missed the fact that on 15.9.88, immediately
after it was noticed that the gold was impure and it could not be converted
into sheets, A-2 had sent a report to the Board, sought permission of the
Board to take the gold to Coimbatore. It can very safely be presumed that
when the gold was required to be taken to Coimbatore, the matter must have
been reported to the Board that the gold was impure and the same was
required to be taken to Coimbatore. High Court has also failed to notice
that when the gold sheet was converted into gold bar, before the accused-
appellant joined the Board, it weighed 1.149 Kg. and when this gold bar was
melted, after the accused-appellant had joined duty, the gold was found
only to be 919.500 Gm. Thus, before the accused-appellant joined as Asst.
Commissioner, there was a shortage of 230 Gm. of the gold in the gold bar
prepared, which was detected when it was converted into gold sheet.
Shortage of pure gold was on account of impurity in the gold bar which was
prepared when the accused-appellant had not even joined the services of the
Board. The High Court has also recorded a finding in paragraph 21 onwards
of the judgment that the bond gold weighing 2.469 Kg. and Nadavaravu
(offerings) of 1 Kg. of gold was handed over to A-3, which was in the form
of ornaments and coins. The purity of bond gold was ascertained and
certified in Exh.P.1 but the purity of the Nadavaravu, was not ascertained
at all and no satisfactory explanation, whatsoever, is offered by any
witness or the prosecution as to how and why 1 Kg. of gold was handed over
to A-3 and permitted to be used in making the Golaka without ascertaining
its purity, as was done in the case of bond gold. The High Court further
held that the entire gold was kept in the double locker system under the
control of A-3 at Chottanikkara and A-3 was keeping both the keys of the
double locker with him. There is convincing evidence to show that the
entire gold was kept in the exclusive custody of A-3. A-3 used to release
the gold necessary for making of Golaka every morning and used to keep them
back by the end of the day and the craftsman A-4 was dealing with the gold
everyday. The above finding of the High Court clearly establishes that it
was A-3 who was entrusted with the entire gold and he was keeping the
custody of the same. A-2 had nothing to do with it, except he being the
Asstt. Commissioner of the Devaswom Board, Cochin. He was overall in-charge
of the work carried on at Chottanikkara, along with the other duties which
he was required to perform in the other shrines, which were coming under
his jurisdiction. The High Court has also failed to notice after recording
the finding, that 1 Kg. of gold of the Nadavaravu which was mixed up with
pure bond gold, the purity was not assessed and it cannot be said with
certainty that pure gold delivered was 4.499 Kg., to ascertain the loss of
pure, gold, for which the accused persons were charged. It is a matter of
common knowledge that ornaments contain and require mixing of other metals
in gold, and when the gold ornaments weighing about 1 Kg. were given, it
can safely be assumed that they contained, along with gold, impurities of
other metals, and thus was not 1 Kg. of pure gold.