Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.85 seconds)The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
State Of Maharashtra vs Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede on 29 July, 2009
In State of Maharashtra Vs.
Dnyaneshwar Wankhede (supra) it is held that illegal gratification is
sine-qua-non for the constitution of offence under Prevention of
Corruption Act. Before the accused was called upon to explain as to
how the amount in question was found in his possession, the
fundamental facts must be established by the prosecution.
Presumption under Section 20 cannot be raised unless fundamental
18 criapeal5.2005 judgment
facts are proved.
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Babu Lal Bajpai vs State Of U.P. on 24 November, 1992
In Babu Lal Bajpai (supra), the Hon'ble Allahabad High
Court held that when there is no motive of demand and acceptance
of bribe, there has to be acquittal. It was the case that no bill of
complainant contractor was pending with accused. It was held
when there was no bill pending with the accused, there was no
question of asking for a bribe for sanction of the bill. In that view
the judgment was delivered.
Loonkaran Gandhi(D) Tr.Lr. Mrs Shama ... vs State Of Maharashtra . on 6 September, 2023
(e) In Dagadu Paku Dhebe Since (D) thr. LR's Vs.
State of Maharashtra - 2022 ALL MR (Cri) 4055
Samsul Haque vs The State Of Assam on 26 August, 2019
In Samsul Haque (supra) it is
held that in 313 examination accused was not given an opportunity
to explain the incriminating circumstances and in that view the
Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the appeal of the accused.
Kalicharan And Others vs The State Of U.P. on 29 September, 2022
In Kalicharan
(supra) it is held that the relevancy of circumstances appearing were
not put to the accused in 313 examination. It is held that the
accused could not get an opportunity to explain the circumstances
against him and in that view the acquittal was recorded.
Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Suryakant Shankarrao Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 February, 2016
In Suryakant (supra) it was the case that even after
obtaining the bribe, the work of the informant was impossible to be
done. In this case it is held that in such cases it would be
improbable that the accused would make any demand.