Search Results for "demand and acceptance"

1866 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1866 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses State Appeal Against Acquittal in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Trap Witness. Demand and Acceptance of Bribe Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt Under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment of the Special Judge, Sangli in Special Case No.1 of 1987, which acquitted the respondent-accus...

© 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 Section 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 appellant, C. Krishnaiah, was accused no. 2 in a corruption case before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Spl. Case No. 1...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

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

The appellant, Prakash Babulal Pardeshi, was convicted by the Sessions Court, Nashik, in Special Case No.11 of 2012 for offences under Sections 7, 13(...

© 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(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside as prosecution failed to establish demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant, Nathaji Tukaram Lohakare, a Talathi (village revenue officer), was convicted by the Special Judge, Solapur, for offences under Section ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

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

The appellant, Mahesh Ramesh Jadhav, was convicted by the Special Judge, Amalner, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corr...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

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

The appellant, Aarif Ali Yusuf Ali Sayyad, was convicted by the Special Judge, Dhule, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Cor...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Lack of Sanction. Conviction under Sections 7, 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 present appeal was filed by Vinayak Raghunath Wakle, who was convicted by the learned Special Judge, Aurangabad, in Special Case No. 8 of 1998 for...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Evidence of Demand and Acceptance. Conviction under Sections 7, 12, 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 appellant, Ramdas Waman Tadge, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, in Special (A.C.B.) Case No. 01 of 2008 for offences unde...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Lack of Sanction and Unreliable Trap Witnesses. Conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside as prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.

The case pertains to an appeal against conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellants, Dr. Nishikant Bhaskarrao Kulkarni (sin...