Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Another reason which points towards the petitioner’s misconduct is that he was aware of the pendency of the writ petitions and other civil proceedings and quietly ignored all such while issuance of provisional allotment.”
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts in March 2024
“In the recent times, there was an increase in socio economic offences in the country. These are the offences which are solely committed for personal gains. These crimes are affecting every part of the country’s economic structure and wrecking the people’s faith in the system.”
The Enforcement Officer Ankit Tiwari was accused of an offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
“In the cases in which an office bearer or an officer is caught red handed and is being proceeded under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, there is no scope of taking a lenient view.”
“The Investigating Officer becomes functus officio when charge sheet is filed after investigation, unless there will be further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.”
Bombay High Court explained that the instant case did not pertain to defective sanction.
“Mere conduct and action of the accused contrary to rules and departmental norms would not amount to criminal misconduct by a public servant.”
Madars High Court held that having obliged her husband to keep the ill-gotten income other than the known source of income, by lending her name for purchase of properties both in her name and in the name of her minor children, showing her as guardian, she is guilty of abetment under Section 109 of IPC.
The individual against whom the allegations are made, ought to be a ‘Public Servant’ whose appointing authority is the Central Government or the State Government to entitle him to the protection under section 197 CrPC and not to every public servant.
“If the aspersions cast on the integrity of a public servant and the Investigating Officer harbours a view that an investigation is necessary, it would be in the interests of both the Government and the public servant that such a nagging suspicion is obliterated”.
The Ministry of Coal’s policy was concerned with end use and the end use for the Baidyanath Ayurved being ‘power’ was in conformity with the MoC’s policy.
Supreme Court pointed out that the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were duly proved by the prosecution in the instant matter through witnesses who supported the prosecution case.
Punjab and Haryana High Court granted provisional bail to IAS Popli ‘purely on humanitarian ground’.
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.