Search Results for "bribe demand"

307 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 307 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka 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 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The appellant, B.M. Venkatappa, a Second Division Assistant in the Office of the Director, Employees State Insurance, Bengaluru, was convicted by the ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Lack of Demand and Acceptance of Bribe. Conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside as prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal was filed by Gangamma, a Supervisor in the Women and Child Welfare Department, challenging her conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Lack of Independent Witnesses and Unreliable Trap Proceedings. 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, G B Jagadeesh, was convicted by the Special Judge, Davanagere, in Spl.C.(Lokayukta) No.9/2007 for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Complainant and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside as demand and acceptance of bribe not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant, Sukhdeo Laxman Parale, was a Talathi (village revenue officer) in Phulumri, Yavatmal. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Pusad, for...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Lack of Proof of Demand. Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside as prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant, Nivrutti s/o Ganpati Sadekar, was a Junior Assistant in the Education Department of Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. The complainant, Balaji...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Appellants in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Trap Witness. Conviction under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside as sole trap witness was a stock witness and evidence lacked corroboration.

The case involves two appeals against conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant Gopal Gadhave (accused no.1) was convicte...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Public Servant in Corruption Case for Demand and Acceptance of Bribe. Appellant convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting Rs. 500 as illegal gratification for processing a grant application.

The appellant, Manoj Shankar Deshpande, a public servant working as an Assistant in the Fisheries Department, was convicted by the Special Judge, Pune...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Police Constable 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 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The appellant, a police constable, was convicted by the Special Judge, Kolhapur, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 5,000 from Bipin Yeshwant ...

© 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) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The appellant, M.C. Manjunatha, was convicted by the Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Mysore, in Special Case No. 69/2004 for offences puni...