Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Permitting the CBI to pick up one aspect of the investigation and file a piece-meal chargesheet with respect to the same and consequently, defeating the right of the applicant to default bail, goes against the mandate of Article 21.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 9 R. 13 r/w S. 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 — Ex
Supreme Court said that when reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the Court to draw a conclusion of guilt.
Rajasthan High Court stated that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the appellant and mere recovery of money could not be a grounds to consider it as a bribe.
The Constitution Bench of SA Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna, JJ has observed that the trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant if the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence.
by Shruti Awasthi† and Arpit Singh††
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 451 and 457: In this case, civil suit was pending between financier of vehicle
The consistent effort made by all branches of the State, the Judiciary, the Legislative, and the Executive, to ensure early decision-making by the competent authority cannot be watered down by lexical interpretation of the expression endeavour in the proviso.
Karnataka High Court: M Nagaprasanna, J. quashed the proceedings initiated against a public servant working as an Executive Engineer in
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Anand Pathak, J. dismissed an application for bail which was filed by the applicant, who had been arrested
Rajasthan High Court: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J., refused to interfere with the impugned order due to lack of any legal infirmity. The
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Prakash Shrivastava and Arun Kumar Sharma, JJ., dismissed a petition in which the issue
Bombay High Court: K.R. Shriram, J., while explaining the concept of bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, upheld the decision
Supreme Court: In a case relating to Prevention of Corruption Act, the 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R.
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K Agrawal J., dismissed the petition holding that bank account is considered as property within the meaning of
Karnataka High Court: John Michael Cunha J., while rejecting the present petition, recorded no error or infirmity in the challenged order warranting
Supreme Court: Clarifying the legal position on expiry of stay, the 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph, JJ
Jharkhand High Court: Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J., dismissed the criminal petition seeking exoneration from criminal proceedings. In the present case, the petitioner