Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.52 seconds)Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Noor Aga vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 9 July, 2008
20. Even in a case where the burden is on the accused, it is well-known, the
prosecution must prove the foundational facts. [See Noor Aga v. State of
Punjab 2008 (9) SCALE 691 and Jayendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of
Maharashtra and Anr. 2009 (7) SCALE 757]
Dilip & Anr vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 2006
21. It is also a well-settled principle of law that where it is possible to have
both the views, one in favour of the prosecution and the other in favour of the
accused, the latter should prevail. [See Dilip and Another v. State of M.P.
(2007) 1 SCC 450 and Gagan Kanojia and Another v. State of Punjab (2006) 13
SCC 516]
Shivappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 31 March, 2008
15. Before embarking on the rival contentions raised before us, it is our duty
to remind ourselves that we are dealing with a judgment of acquittal and, thus, it
is absolutely essential to keep in mind the well-settled principles of law that in
the event two views are possible to be taken, this Court shall not interfere with a
judgment of acquittal. There cannot be any doubt that in the event, having
regard to the materials brought on record, the court comes to the conclusion on
the basis thereof that only one view is possible, a judgment of acquittal may be
interfered with. [See Shivappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2008) 11 SCC
337, State of Maharashtra v. Rashid B. Mulani (2006) 1 SCC 407 and State
through Inspector of Police, A.P. v. K. Narasimhachary (2005) 8 SCC 364]
Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Gagan Kanojia & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 24 November, 2006
21. It is also a well-settled principle of law that where it is possible to have
both the views, one in favour of the prosecution and the other in favour of the
accused, the latter should prevail. [See Dilip and Another v. State of M.P.
(2007) 1 SCC 450 and Gagan Kanojia and Another v. State of Punjab (2006) 13
SCC 516]
State Of Maharashtra vs Rashid B. Mulani on 4 January, 2006
15. Before embarking on the rival contentions raised before us, it is our duty
to remind ourselves that we are dealing with a judgment of acquittal and, thus, it
is absolutely essential to keep in mind the well-settled principles of law that in
the event two views are possible to be taken, this Court shall not interfere with a
judgment of acquittal. There cannot be any doubt that in the event, having
regard to the materials brought on record, the court comes to the conclusion on
the basis thereof that only one view is possible, a judgment of acquittal may be
interfered with. [See Shivappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2008) 11 SCC
337, State of Maharashtra v. Rashid B. Mulani (2006) 1 SCC 407 and State
through Inspector of Police, A.P. v. K. Narasimhachary (2005) 8 SCC 364]
1