Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)
Heard On The Point Of Sentence And ... vs P. Chauhan on 6 October, 2012 cites

State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Awadh Kishore Gupta And Ors on 18 November, 2003

74. Now during the check period evidence of PW­1 brings out that property at C­1/25A, Second Floor, Panchsheel, Khirki New Delhi was purchased by accused in the name of his wife for a total consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs. Further, another property sold by the accused was a plot measuring 250 yards at Ambedkar for Rs.2,80,000/­. This amount cannot be taken as an income of the accused as that would amount to legitimizing his ill gotten money. Reference can be had to observations in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Awadh Kishore Gupta (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 563 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar on 6 May, 1981

57. It must be kept at the back of our mind that the Superior Courts have observed in a catena of decisions that a liberal view must be taken of what proportion of assets in excess of the known sources of income constitutes "disproportionate" for Sec. 13(1)(e)of the Act. As per Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary, the meaning of 'disproportionate' is " too large or State (CBI) v. Shashi Bhanu Page No.21/48 22 too small when compared with something else". Thus, in order to hold a person guilty for possession of disproportionate assets, the difference should be too large or unconscionable and not too small or trivial. Further, it must be understood that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and in doing so the prosecution cannot derive any strength or support from the weakness in the case of the defence. Reference can be had to decision in State of Maharashtra Vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar" AIR 1981 SC 1186.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 107 - A P Sen - Full Document
1   2 Next