Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.47 seconds)The Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
Besides in the further case of
B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 749 the
maximum relaxation allowed by the Supreme Court was to the extent of
10% which could not be further extended leaving the ACB no discretion
not to prosecute.
P. Nallammal vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 9 August, 1999
52. The Petitioner claims that in view of the various cross
transactions shown by and between the accounts of the Respondents who
are admittedly family members and in their dealings admittedly shown to
be taking and giving of loans without security and interest, the abetment
of the offence by the relatives of Respondent No.9, being Respondent
Nos.10 to 14 is made out and they also require to be arraigned as co-
accused as held in the case of P. Nallammal & Anr. Vs. State (1999) 6
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:12:37 :::
31 PIL.WP.51.2010.sxw
SCC 559.
Madhuresh vs Cbi And Others on 4 March, 1997
Madhuresh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 78 (1999) DLT 361
(DB)].
Abhinandan Jha & Ors vs Dinesh Mishra(With Connected Appeal) on 17 April, 1967
It is contended that such opinion has to be formed only by
the Investigating Authority and not the Court. [See. Abhinandan Jha &
Ors. Vs. Dinesh Mishra AIR 1968 SC 117 and Union of India & Ors.
D.Venkatasubramaniam & Ors vs M.K.Mohan Krishnamachari & Ors on 14 September, 2009
It is contended that the Court giving any direction to
investigate the case or to submit a charge-sheet would exceed its authority
by unwarranted interference in accordance with its views to overwrite the
decision of the Investigating Authority which is not permitted in law.
[See. D. Venkatasubramaniam & Ors. Vs. M. K. Mohan
Krishnamachari & Anr. (2009) 10 SCC 488].
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 October, 2007
The observation in the case of M. C. Mehta (Supra) "we do
not think that we should go beyond the same" relied upon by Respondent
No.9 indeed takes us through the stage of directing the launching of the
criminal prosecution upon the material evidence.