Category: Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7(a) – Taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence – The appeal challenges the High Court of Karnataka’s decision to quash an FIR against respondent for alleged bribery, based on a complaint by the appellant – The main issue is whether the High Court was correct in quashing the FIR, which was based on allegations of bribery and corruption against the respondent – The Supreme Court found the High Court’s decision legally unsustainable, noting that it failed to consider direct evidence, such as a pendrive, indicating the respondent’s complicity – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s judgment, and restored the FIR for further legal proceedings.

2024 INSC 331 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJU RAJAN NAYAR — Appellant Vs. JAYARAJ AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 109 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) – The court found that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s orders are not conclusive for the criminal case and that a full trial is necessary to evaluate the evidence – The court analyzed precedents and laws, concluding that findings in tax proceedings do not automatically negate criminal charges for disproportionate assets – The court upheld the charges, stating that the appellants did not provide sufficient grounds to interfere with the order on charge and the framing of charges.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNEET SABHARWAL AND OTHER — Appellant Vs. CBI — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. ….of…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 319 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 406, 409, 420, 457 and 380 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) – Summoning order against police officials – Misappropriating of paddy – Corruption – There appears to be prima facie evidence on record to make it a triable case as against the police officials – Summoning order against police officials is upheld – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURDEV SINGH BHALLA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal…

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(1)(e), 13(2) and 19(3) – Once the cognizance was taken by the Special Judge and the charge was framed against the accused, the trial could neither have been stayed nor scuttled in the midst of it in view of Section 19(3) of Act – Order of discharge is set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE — Appellant Vs. S. SUBBEGOWDA — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal…

(CrPC) – Section 306(4)(a) – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 5(2) – In cases where the Special Court decides to proceed with a case under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, there is no need to consider the requirement of the approver being examined as a witness in the Magistrate’s Court according to Section 306(4)(a).

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. SRINIVASULU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

Double jeopardy – Hearing to accused – Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed – court is not obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: Surya Kant & J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. SLP (Crl.) Nos. 7628-7630 of 2017 Decided on: 28.04.2023 State Through Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant Versus Hemendhra…

Prevention of Corruption Act – IPC – The directions issued in the said original petition for de novo investigation are set aside. The Investigation Officer shall proceed with further investigation in all cases by including the offences under the PC Act – writ petitions challenging the initiation of proceedings by ED shall stand dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH Y. BALAJI — Appellant Vs. KARTHIK DESARI & ANR. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) – Unless both demand and acceptance are established, offence of obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means covered by clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) cannot be proved – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOUNDARAJAN — Appellant Vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE ANTICORRUPTION DINDIGUL — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.