Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.34 seconds)
The Associated Journals Ltd vs Central Bureau Of Ivestigation on 25 February, 2026 cites

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs A Raja & Ors on 23 November, 2020

6.7. Eighthly, he has contended that in terms of law laid down in A. Raja case (supra) there is no impediment in framing charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, since the offences alleged were committed prior to coming into force of the 2018 amendment which was notified on 26.07.2018. Lastly, the contention is that the act of re-allotment by BSH cannot be treated as an error of judgment, as contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioner. There is enough material on record to prima facie establish that it was done with mala fide intention, by abusing the official position.
Delhi High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The State Of Telangana vs Managipet @ Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy on 6 December, 2019

4. Mr. Poonia, learned senior counsel, also appearing on behalf of BSH, raised an additional ground that charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act could not have been framed as the provision stood substituted with a new one by way of an amendment to the Act notified on 26.07.2018, Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (16 of 2018), which was prior to presentation of chargesheet in the Court, 30.11.2018. The provision which was not there on statute book on the day of presentation of chargesheet, could not have been invoked against the petitioner. In this regard he has also referred to the saving provision, Section 30, which does not contain any clause to save Section 13(1)(d) of the original Act; it has been omitted altogether. And as per the settled law, omission of a statutory provision means it never existed in the Act. To reject the contention, learned trial Court wrongly relied upon the Delhi High Court judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Raja and others, 2021(2) RCR (Criminal) 692, which is based upon the Supreme Court judgment in State of Telangana v. Sri Managipet alias Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy, 2019 (19) SCC 87, since the latter is not a binding precedent as it has not considered the aforementioned relevant aspects concerning the amendment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 50 - H Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 Next