Search Results for "gratification"

483 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 483 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Corruption Case Due to Lack of Proof of Demand. High Court's reversal of conviction for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 upheld as prosecution failed to prove demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.

The case pertains to an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka against the acquittal of the respondent, Chandrasha, by the High Court of Karnataka. Th...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Trap Witness and Lack of Corroboration. Demand and Acceptance of Bribe Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt Under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The appellant, Chandrakant Nivrutti Pagar, a Talathi, was convicted by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Nashik for offences under Sections 7, 13(1...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Bribery Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Lack of Corroboration. Demand and Acceptance of Bribe Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The appellant, Deorao Marotrao Bhagatkar, was the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Chandrapur. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Chandrapur, in S...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Tax Collector in Bribery Case Under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Demand of Illegal Gratification for Issuing Tax Demand Notice Proved Through Trap and Recovery of Tainted Currency Notes.

The appellant, Dayaram s/o Balram Kuthe, was a Tax Collector with the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The complainant, Dharamraj Natthuji Madankar, cons...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Lack of Credible Evidence and Uncorroborated Trap Proceedings. Demand and Acceptance of Bribe Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt Under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The appellant, Mahalingappa, a retired Junior Engineer of KPTCL, was convicted by the Special Judge and Principal Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Special Ca...