Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.69 seconds)Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Neeraj Dutta vs State(Govt.Of N.C.T.Of Delhi) on 15 December, 2022
35. The Constitution Bench of the Honourable Apex Court in
the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt.of NCT of Delhi) supra
held that in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification
and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in
issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the
nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. The
.....24/-
Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
K. Shanthamma vs The State Of Telangana on 21 February, 2022
33. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of
K.Shanthamma vs. The State of Telangana2 referring the
judgment in the case of P.Satyanarayana Murthy supra held that
the proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its
acceptance by him is sine qua non for establishing the offence
under Section 7 of the said Act. The failure of the prosecution to
prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and
mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the
offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the said Act would not
entail his conviction thereunder.
Subash Parbat Sonvane vs State Of Gujarat on 24 April, 2002
Judgment
255 apeal100.06
24
Honourable Apex Court, while discussing expression "accept",
referred the judgment in the case of Subhash Parbat Sonvane vs.
State of Gujarat3 observed that mere acceptance of money
without there being any other evidence would not be sufficient
for convicting the accused under Section 13(1)(d)(i). In Section
and 13(1) and (b) of the said Act, the Legislature has specifically
used the words 'accepts' or 'obtains'. As against this, there is
departure in the language used in clause (1)(d) of Section 13
and it has omitted the word 'accepts' and has emphasized the
word 'obtains'. In sub clauses (i) and (ii) (iii) of Section 13(1)
C.M.Girish Babu vs Cbi, Cochin, High Court Of Kerala on 24 February, 2009
39. The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of C.M.Girish
Babu vs. CBI Cochi, High of Kerala4, held that it is well settled
that the presumption to be drawn under Section 20 is not an
inviolable one. The accused charged with the offence could
rebut it either through the cross-examination of the witnesses
cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence. It is further
held that it is equally well settled that the burden of proof
placed upon the accused person against whom the presumption
is made under Section 20 of the Act is not akin to that of burden
placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable
doubt.
1