Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
M/S Chandigarh Packaging Products ... vs Punjab National Bank And Others on 27 August, 2010
The said judgment of the High Court was challenged
before this Court in the matter of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 684. This Court,
by means of the aforesaid judgment, upheld the decision of the High
Court.
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Amarbir Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 7 July, 2003
30) We have also gone through the reasons given by the High Court in the
impugned judgment, in support of the conclusion that the entire
process is to be treated as vitiated. We find that reasons are the
same which were placed earlier before the High Court by the Government
in Amarbir Singh's case (supra) and they were very much before this
Court as well when the judgment in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) was
rendered. Without alluding to them in detail, we may say in nutshell
that the reasons given pertain to the conduct and role of Mr. Sidhu
and his accomplices who had taken money/bribes from some of the
candidates or had given undue favour to some other candidates because
of other influences. The material discussed is the allegations in
various FIRs and statements of Mr. Jagman Singh, a confident and tout
of Mr. Sidhu (who had become approver in the criminal case), and
others recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 and the cases in the criminal trial. However, even after
noticing these very reasons, this Court had held that those who are
innocent cannot be punished because of the misdeeds of Mr. Sidhu in
showing favour to other tainted candidates.
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Inderpreet Singh Kahlon & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 3 May, 2006
24) It was argued by Mr. Raju Ramachandran and Mr. Gurminder Singh,
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, that the mandate
of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) was limited to one aspect only,
namely, to segregate the cases of tainted candidates from non-tainted
ones, if it was possible.
Paramjit Panag And Others vs State Of Punjab on 2 March, 2009
32) After remand the Writ petitions of these judicial officers were
decided by the High Court in the case titled as Sirandip Singh Panag
v. State of Punjab, 2008 (4) RSJ 288. The High Court had allowed
those petitions.
1