LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label 1988. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1988. Show all posts
Friday, October 3, 2014

Section 7 & Section 13(d)(i)(ii)(iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Trial court convicted the accused - High court confirmed the same - Apex court held that the Special Judge had convicted the appellant-The appellant is said to be 60 years old and suffering from heart disease, facial nerve palsy and speech disorder. Copies of medical reports have been filed in this regard. We are of the view that the imposition of minimum sentence prescribed for the offences for which the conviction is made would meet the ends of justice. In the result the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment imposed on the appellant-accused for the conviction under Section 7 of the Act is set aside and instead he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and the sentence of fine and default sentence imposed on him for the said conviction is retained. Sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment imposed on the appellant-accused for the conviction under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act is set aside and instead he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and the sentence of fine and default sentence imposed on him for the said conviction is retained. The sentences are to run concurrently. The Criminal appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.= CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1864 OF 2011 Somabhai Gopalbhai Patel … Appellant versus State of Gujarat … Respondent = 2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41954

›
 Section 7 & Section 13(d)(i)(ii)(iii) read with Section 13(2)   of the  Prevention  of Corruption Act, 1988  - Trial court convicted t...
Thursday, October 2, 2014

Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - High court acquitted the accused under sec.7 but convicted under sec.3(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act - complainant not supported the case of prosecution - no evidence - evidence of I.O. and Ex. P 1 marked complaint can be considered as proof of evidence - mere possession of amount can be considered as demand of bribe - Apex court held that When PW1 Ramesh himself had disowned what he has stated in his initial complaint in Exh.P1 before PW4 Inspector Santosh Kumar and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW3 Kumaraswamy and the contents of Exh.P1 complaint cannot be relied upon to conclude that the said material furnishes proof of demand allegedly made by the accused. The High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are liable to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. Bail bond, if any furnished by the appellant, be released.=CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1578 OF 2011 M.R. Purushotham … Appellant versus State of Karnataka … Respondent = 2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41953

›
 Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)  (d)  read  with  Section  13(2)  of the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  1988 - High court acquitted the accused ...
Monday, August 4, 2014

Sec.321 of Cr.P.C. - withdrawal of prosecution - Permission rejected - offence under Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - G.O. issued to withdraw - basing on G.O. - prosecutor filed the petition for withdraw - Trial court rejected the same - High court confirmed the same - Apex court held that we are of the considered opinion that view expressed by the learned trial Judge as well as the High Court cannot be found fault with. We say so as we are inclined to think that there is no ground to show that such withdrawal would advance the cause of justice and serve the public interest. That apart, there was no independent application of mind on the part of the learned public prosecutor, possibly thinking that the Court would pass an order on a mere asking. The view expressed in Name Dasarath’s case (supra) is not applicable to the case at hand as the two- Judge Bench therein has opined that the law laid down in Sheo Nandan Paswan’s case has not been correctly appreciated by the learned trial Judge and the High Court. We have referred to the said authority and the later decisions which are on the basis of Sheo Nandan Paswan’s case have laid down the principles pertaining to the duty of the public prosecutor and the role of the Court and we find the view expressed by the trial Court and the High Court is absolutely impregnable and, therefore, the decision in Name Dasarath (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In the result, the criminal appeal, being sans substratum, is dismissed. = CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1587 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 1487 of 2012) Bairam Muralidhar … Appellant Versus State of Andhra Pradesh …Respondent = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41797

›
     Sec.321 of Cr.P.C. - withdrawal of prosecution - Permission rejected - offence under Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of ...