Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.46 seconds)The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Prakash Chand vs State (Delhi Administration) on 20 November, 1978
40. Besides that in the case reported as AIR 1998 SC 1474
State of U.P. Vs. Zakullaha it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme
C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 40 of 49
Court of India that the evidence of trap officer in a bribe case can be
acted upon even without the help of any corroboration and similar
view was held in the judgment "Prakash Chand vs. State (Delhi
Administration) AIR 1979 SC 400".
Anna Wankhade vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 24 May, 2011
41. I also do not find any force in the submission of Ld.
Defence Counsel to the effect that despite the availability of
independent public witness at the neighborhood of the spot, the Raid
Officer had not joined any of them in the raid proceedings and same is
fatal for the case of the prosecution. I am of the considered view that
since the Raid Officer had already joined PW7/Panch witness, Rajpal
Singh in the raid proceedings, nonjoining of any other public witness
available at the neighborhood cannot be over emphasized. My said
view is also found supported from the judgment reported as 2011 V
AD (DELHI) 500, Anna Wankhade Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation (Through State), wherein it was held in Para 21 as
under:
"21. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition
regarding desirability of association of independent witnesses by
the police so as to lend more credence and authenticity to the case,
but there is also no dispute that nonassociation of the
C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 41 of 49
independent witnesses per se for any reason whatsoever was in
itself not enough to discard the prosecution witnesses or throw
away the case as a whole. In the present case, CBI associated two
independent witnesses on the written requisition made to the
office of NDMC. Since the prosecution/CBI already had two
independent witnesses, who had been informed and apprised
about the technicalities involved in the procedure during the trap
proceedings, it was not necessary for the IO to have joined other
public witnesses at the time of apprehension. May be to avoid the
risk of such a raw public person getting won over or being unable
to understand the proceedings at the last moment of raid, that the
IOs usually avoid associating public witnesses at that stage in such
type of cases."
Kootha Perumal vs State Tr.Insp.Of Police Vig.& Anti ... on 15 December, 2010
17. In the case reported in 2011 I AD (CRI.) (S.C.) 1, Kootha
Perumal Vs. State (through) Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti
Corruption, it was held in Para 14 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India as under:
"Keeping in view the aforesaid statement of law, it would
not be possible to conclude that the sanction order in the
present case was not valid. Ex.P2 with the present
appeal is the copy of the sanction order. A perusal of the
same would show that the sanctioning authority has
adverted to all the necessary facts which have been
actually proved by the prosecution in the trial. Upon
examination of the material facts, the sanctioning
authority has certified that it is the authority competent
to remove the appellant from the office. It is specifically
stated that the statements of the witnesses have been
duly examined. Sanction order also states that the other
materials such as copy of the FIR as well as other official
documents such as the different mahazars were carefully
C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 14 of 49
examined. Upon examination of the statements of the
witnesses as also the material on record, the sanctioning
authority has duly recorded its satisfaction that the
appellant should be prosecuted for the offences, as
noticed above. We, therefore, find no merit in the
submission of the learned counsel that the sanctioning
order to prosecute the appellant was not legal".
Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel vs The State Of Gujarat on 6 April, 1976
34. Besides this, law is well settled that it does not matter
whether the public servant was competent to do the work or not and
reference can be placed in the case reported as Chaturdas
Bhagwandas Patel Vs. State of Gujrat, 1976(3) SCC 46 as referred
in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. C. Uma Maheshwar Rao and Anr.
2004, V AD (SC) 176, wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India that the question whether a person has an authority to
do the act for which bribe is accepted, is of no consequence.