Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.35 seconds)Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Zenit Mataplast P.Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 11 September, 2009
In Zenit Mataplast (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10
SCC 388 this court held: (SCC p. 399, page 39)
"39. Anything done in undue haste can also be termed as arbitrary
and cannot be condoned in law"
Rajiv Kumar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 2 August, 2017
181. A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that if the elements of
any of the three sub classes are met, the same would be sufficient to constitute
an offence of 'criminal misconduct' under Section 13 (1) (d). Undoubtedly, all
the three wings of clause (d) of Section 13 (1) are independent, alternative and
disjunctive. Thus, under Section 13 (1) (d) (i) of PC Act obtaining any valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means by a public servant in
itself would amount to criminal misconduct. On the same reasoning under
Section 13 (1) (d) (ii) of PC Act, "obtaining a valuable thing or a pecuniary
advantage" by abusing his official position as a public servant, either for himself
or for any other person would amount to criminal misconduct [See, Rajiv Kumar
(supra)].
A. Subair vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2009
Therefore, in so far as Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is concerned, its
CBI v Sh. Y. N. Kashyap & Ors. Page 69 of 71
CC No.16/16 DL-0375
essential ingredients are: (i) that he should have been a public servant; (ii) that
he should have corrupt or illegal means or otherwise, abused his position as
such public servant and (iii) that he should have obtained a valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person (A. Subair v. State of
Kerala, 200 (3) SCC (CR) 85).