Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.81 seconds)
Shambhu Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 22 September, 2021 cites

The State Of Gujarat vs Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi on 17 July, 2018

"1. This is a petition filed by Respondent 1-Accused 2 to modify the judgment dated 17-7-2018 in State of Gujarat v. Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi1. In para 3 of the judgment, Respondent 1-Accused 2 has been stated to be the government servant, which is not factually correct. Though, Respondent 1-Accused 2 is not a government servant, bribe amount in currency notes of Rs 500 were recovered from him only; there were signs of anthracene powder noticed from the shirt pocket of Respondent 1-Accused 2. Considering the fact that currency notes were recovered form Respondent 1- Accused 2, in our view, the ingredients of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are established. The conviction of Respondent 1-Accused 2 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is modified as the 47 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020 With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020 conviction under Section 8 of the said Act, and the sentence of one year imposed is reduced to six months.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 44 - R Banumathi - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Madan Mohan Lal Verma on 12 August, 2013

21. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is no dispute that it is a settled principle of law that mere recovery of the bribe money by itself cannot bring home the charge for the offences 38 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020 With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020 punishable under section 7 or 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused persons of any case, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe on demand or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money, as has inter alia been held in the cases State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma (supra), V. Sejappa v. State (supra), Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) and Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI (supra). Now coming to the facts of the case, the shadow witness in the case namely Prabhu Dayal has died as is evident from Ext.20 which is the charge sheet of this case wherein, it has categorically been mentioned against his name that he is dead and the said fact is not in dispute. So this leaves the P.W.1 to be the only competent witness who has seen the demand of money, acceptance of money. As undisputedly, besides the P.W.2, there is ample evidence in the shape of testimonies of P.Ws.1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 regarding recovery of money. So far as the evidence of P.W.2 is concerned, there is absolutely no cross-examination of him on any material particulars regarding demand of money, acceptance of money or recovery of money from the appellant-convicts. Similarly, there is no cross-examination of P.Ws.1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 regarding their testimonies of recovery of the money from the appellant-convicts. There is absolutely no cross-examination of any of the witnesses of the 39 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020 With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020 prosecution regarding the colour of the sodium carbonate solution turning pink upon the fingers of the appellant- convicts being washed with the solution and the denominations and number of the notes upon being compared with the notes recovered, the same were tallied.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 372 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Radheshyam Kejriwal vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 18 February, 2011

25. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the exoneration in the departmental proceeding ipso facto would not result in the quashing of the criminal prosecution. We hasten to add, however, that if the prosecution against an accused is solely based on a finding in a proceeding and that finding is set aside by the superior authority in the hierarchy, the very foundation goes and the prosecution may be quashed. But that principle will not apply in the case of the departmental proceeding as the criminal trial and the departmental proceeding are held by two different entities. Further, they are not in the same hierarchy. (Emphasis supplied) submits that as the said issue has been authoritatively decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and as this criminal proceeding was not instituted on the basis of the findings of any departmental proceeding rather this case has been instituted on the basis of the trap and on the basis of the said trap subsequently departmental proceeding is claimed to have been initiated; though there is no document to that effect in the record, hence exoneration, if any, in the departmental proceeding is of no consequence so far this criminal prosecution is concerned. It is then submitted that otherwise also assuming for the sake of argument, though not admitting that the appellant-convicts have been exonerated in a departmental proceeding but ipso-facto that would not result in acquittal in this case. Mrs. Sinha then submitted that in Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 paragraph 38 of which has been quoted in the judgment of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr.
Supreme Court of India Cites 74 - Cited by 231 - C K Prasad - Full Document

Vinod Kumar Garg vs State (Govt. Of National Capital ... on 22 January, 2020

29. It is also a settled principle of law that when the witnesses are examined after a long time from the date of occurrence as in this case, such witnesses cannot recollect and narrate the entire conversation with the photographic memory notwithstanding hiatus of passage of time as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi) (supra) as relied upon by the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of Anti- Corruption Bureau. The discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses are puerile in nature and certainly they do not discredit the testimony of any of the witnesses examined in the case by the prosecution.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 34 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next