Search Results for "bribe demand"

307 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 307 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Prosecution's Case Fails: Appellant Acquitted of Bribery Charges. Inconsistencies and Lack of Evidence Lead to Appellant's Acquittal in High-Profile Bribery Case

The prosecution failed to substantiate the charge under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act against the appellant (AO1). The evidence did n...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Trap Witness and Lack of Corroboration. 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, Kashinath Shiru Ahire, was a maintenance surveyor in the Land Record office at Sindkheda, District Dhule. He was convicted by the Speci...

© 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 Unreliable Trap Witness and Lack of Corroboration. 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 case involves an appeal against conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellants, Pandit Shankar Chaudhari and Subhash Kitk...

© 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 Lack of Demand and Acceptance of Bribe. Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside as prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant, Sanjay s/o Ishwar Bhanushali, was convicted by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) for Greater Mumbai for offences under S...

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

The appellant, Jitendra Kumar Jain, was convicted by the Special Judge, Silvassa, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Pr...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

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

The appellant, Ashwin Chintaman Shambharkar, was convicted by the Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No. 18 of 1997 for offences under Section 7 an...