Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.22 seconds)
V.M.K.Moorthy vs Unknown on 25 January, 2012 cites

A.B.Bhaskara Rao vs Inspector Of Police,Cbi Vishakpatnam on 23 September, 2011

28.The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that there is a delay in investigating the matter. P.W.17 commenced the investigation only on 21.07.1998 and completed the same on 24.10.1998. Thereafter, sanction was granted on 17.04.2000. But the above argument does not hold good. As per the decision reported in 2011 AIR SCW 5539 (A.B.Bhaskara Rao v. Inspector of Police, CBI, Visakhapatnam), it is held that there is a long delay in disposal of appeal or any other factor, is no ground when statute prescribes minimum sentence. So long delay will not vitiate the conviction. Hence, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in this aspect, does not merit acceptance. Therefore, the Special Court considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to the correct conclusion that the sanction order is valid, Ex.P6 is admissible in evidence and explanation offered by the appellant for the known source of income in respect of father and father-in-law of the appellant, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 171 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

State Of M.P vs Jiyalal on 31 July, 2009

18.Now this Court has to consider the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.17. P.W.1 in his cross-examination, stated that Mr.Pari- investigating officer, who was examined as P.W.17, produced all the documents relating to the appellant and explained the same. In page-1 of his chief-examination, he specifically mentioned the documents viz., xerox copy of F.I.R, statement of witnesses, Evaluation report, property statement submitted by the appellant, pay drawn particulars, statement of property Nos.1 to 7, Memo issued by Vigilance officer to the accused and Explanation given by the appellant/accused. After perusing the above said documents, P.W.1 accorded sanction. In his cross-examination, nothing has been culled out. P.W.1 fairly conceded that after P.W.17 met him and sought for sanction, he gone through the document and prepared the sanction proceedings. As per the decision reported in (2010) 2 SCC (cri) 272 (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jiyalal), according the sanction in discharge of routine official functions and hence there is a presumption that the same was done in a bona fide manner. The evidence of P.W.1 has been fortified and corroborated by P.W.17.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 34 - Full Document
1   2 Next