Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: prevention of corruption act 1988 Page 1 of about 10,248 results (0.081 seconds)

Sep 25 1998 (HC)

Harnek Singh Vs. the State of Punjab [Overruled]

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1999CriLJ635

..... the rank of deputy superintendent of police. after the repealment of the prevention of corruption act, 1947, the prevention of corruption act, 1988, came into force, the matter regarding the issue of notification empowering or authorising the inspectors of police to investigate the cases under the prevention of corruption act, 1988 was taken up with the government, annexure p2 shows that the vigilance ..... bureau, punjab were not empowered by any notification to investigate the cases under the prevention of corruption act, 1988 through posts of superintendents of police, deputy superintendents of police and steno typists were created. it is, therefore, clearly made out that the state government ..... posts of deputy superintendents of police as it was known to the government that inspectors of police had not been empowered to investigate cases under the prevention of corruption act, 1988 and that power of investigation was with the deputy superintendent of police. the material available on record show that inspectors of police in the vigilance ..... explain in detail the provisions of the bill. 10. the prevention of corruption bill (36 of 1987) received the assent of the president after being passed by both the houses of parliament on 9th september, 1988 and became an act known as prevention of corruption act, 1988 (49 of 1988) repealing the prevention of corruption act, 1947. 11. repeal means, to revoke, to annual, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 1998 (SC)

P.V. Narsimha Rao Vs. State (Cbi/Spe)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1998SC2120; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)157; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)762; 1997(1)BLJR263; 1998CriLJ2930; 1998(3)SCALE53; (1998)4SCC626; [1998]2SCR870

..... the extent indicated earlier. the provisions of article 105(3) are, therefore, not attracted and they do not render assistance to the alleged bribe givers.prevention of corruption act, 198852. in considering the case on the prevention of corruption act, 1988 (the said act) we shall not take account of what we have already held and write, as it were, upon a clean slate. some reference to the ..... from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court, and whether a member of parliament is a 'public servant' falling within the purview of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1988 act'). these are the two questions which have come up for consideration before this bench in these matters.94. in the general election for the tenth lok sabha ..... bench, broadly put, is that, by virtue of the provisions of article 105, they are immune from the prosecution and that, in any event, they cannot be prosecuted under the prevention of corruption act, 1988. privilege.article 105 of the constitution reads thus:'105. powers, privileges, etc., of the house of parliament and of the members and committees thereof. -(1) subject to the provisions ..... of speaking or by giving his vote in parliament or in any committees thereof.2. a member of parliament is a public servant under section 2(c) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988. 3. since there is no authority competent to remove a member of parliament and to grant sanction for his prosecution under section 19(1) of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 1998 (SC)

C. Rangaswamaiah and Others Vs. Karnataka Lokayukta and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1998SC2496; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)400; 1998(4)ALLMR(SC)372; JT1998(5)SC64; 1998(4)SCALE266; (1998)6SCC66; [1998]3SCR837

..... officers are on deputation they are otherwise of the requisite rank as contemplated by section 17 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 and that other formalities under that act are satisfied for entrustment of duties under the prevention of corruption act, 1988. question is whether these police officers of the state can be invested with powers of investigation under section ..... all police officers in charge of police stations of the lokayukta, could take cognizance and investigate offences punishable under the prevention of corruption act, 1988 and the ipc but that keeping in view section 17 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988, they were to obtain necessary orders from the respective superintendents of police, attached to the lokayukta - who in ..... dated 2.11.1992) designating all inspectors of police on deputation with the karnataka lokayukta to be police officers for the purposes of section 17 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 but subject to the 'general and overall control and supervision' of the director general, bureau of investigation, lokayukta, bangalore. under the previous notification dated ..... as an autonomous body would be affected if the police officers on deputation with the lokayukta were entrusted with functions of investigation under section 17 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 and that, therefore, such officers should not have been asked to conduct any such investigation. the learned single judge, however, sustained the investigation already .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 2010 (HC)

R.C. Sabharwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 166(2010)DLT362

..... legislative intent, instead of perpetuating the defect which existed in the law before enactment of prevention of corruption act, 1988.12. one main object behind replacing prevention of corruption act, 1947 by a new act in the year 1988 was to expedite the proceedings initiated under prevention of corruption act by providing for day to day trial of cases and incorporating prohibitory provisions with regard ..... limaye (supra). the meaning to be assigned to the expression 'interlocutory order' in the context of section 19(3)(c) of prevention of corruption act has to be derived considering the objective behind enactment of prevention of corruption act, 1988, including the mischief which the legislature intended to do away with by this enactment. this rule, known as 'purposive construction', enables ..... the reason of the remedy. this rule requires the court to adopt a construction which will suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. before enactment of prevention of corruption act, 1988, orders such as order framing charge or directing framing of charge having been held to be intermediate orders came within the purview of revisional jurisdiction of the ..... made by the learned counsels for the petitioners (i) an order framing charge or directing framing of charge even in a case attracting the provisions of prevention of corruption act, 1988 is not an interlocutory order and therefore revision against such an order is not barred and the judgment of this court in dharambir khattar's case ( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 15 2000 (HC)

Jaysingh Wadhu Singh, (Through His Next Friend in the Family I.E. His ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2001BomCR(Cri)470; (2001)1BOMLR205; 2001CriLJ456; 2001(3)MhLj208

..... position as judge being a public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage for himself or for his family and thereby committed offence of criminal misconduct under section 13 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988.37. in the face of these averments in the sanction order, it cannot be accepted that the offence punishable under section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) do not ..... made out by any piece of evidence so far obtained by the prosecution and the sanction order is silent on this aspect:(c) that section 19 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 13 except with the previous sanction of the state government which has been obtained in the ..... the charge in that regard framed under section 13 of the prevention of corruption act. 1988 are also illegal for the reasons:(a) that the special judge under the m.c.o.c. act cannot take cognizance of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 as the same are within exclusive jurisdiction of the special judge under the prevention of corruption act, 1988;(b) that basic ingredient of the offence punishable under section ..... 16th june, 2000. the charge-sheet was ultimately filed before the special court on 12th june, 2000. the sanction for taking cognizance as required under section 19 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 was accorded by the government on 8th august, 2000. the sanction order was produced before the special court on 9th august, 2000, a copy of which was furnished .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 2006 (HC)

A.K. Biswas (Aranya Kamal Biswas) Vs. the State of Jharkhand

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : 2007(1)BLJR823; [2007(2)JCR126(Jhr)]

..... was submitted by the investigating officer after concluding the investigation on 13.4.1989 for offences under section 7 and section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988. from perusal of the lower court records, it appears that the trial court had taken cognizance of the offence under section 7 and section 13(2), 13((i)( ..... the appellant followed by taking of cognizance of the offence under sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988. learned counsel explains further that on the alleged date of occurrence, it was the previous act, namely the prevention of corruption act, 1947, which was in force and, whereas sanction for prosecution of the appellant was given for offence under section ..... the offence under section 161 i.p.c. besides sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988. apparently, no conviction was recorded for the offence under section 5, 2 and 5(1) of the prevention of corruption act, 1946. it also appears that the learned trial court had proceeded to impose the sentence for the offence under section ..... 161 ipc and section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act, 1947. yet, charge, sheet was submitted by the investigating officer for offence under the provisions of the new act (prevention of corruption act, 1988) and likewise the charge against the appellant was framed for offences under the provisions of the new .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1997 (HC)

L.K. Advani Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1997IIIAD(Delhi)53; 1997CriLJ2559; 1997(4)Crimes1; 66(1997)DLT618; 1997(41)DRJ274; (1997)116PLR1; 1997RLR292

..... for cbi, messrs. n.natrajan and gopal subramanium have urged to the contrary. according to them, the underlying idea while making amendment to the prevention of corruption act, 1947 by the prevention of corruption act, 1988 was to make the anti corruption laws more effective by widening their coverage and by strengthening the provisions. the definition of 'public servant', as given in section 2(c) of ..... every person whosoever holds an office.(40) admittedly as the law is today every member of the executive, every member of the judiciary is covered by the provisions of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 as observed by the hon'ble supreme court in k.veeraswamy v. union of india and others, : (1992)iillj53bsc . thus there is no reason, whatsoever,as to ..... circumstances constitute offences of criminal conspiracy and misconduct punishable under section 120b indian penal code and section 13(2) read with sections 13(l)(d), 7 and 12 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988.(10) it has been urged for and on behalf of the petitioners by messrs ram jethmalai, rajeender singh, kapil sibal and r.k.anand, senior advocates, that the ..... 95-acu-6 under section 120b indian penal code and sections 7 & 13(2) read with section 13(l)(d) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 and under section 120b indian penal code and section 12 of prevention of corruption act. the learned special judge through the said judgment and order came to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case against the above .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 2007 (HC)

Shri Vilas V. Sanghai Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2007(5)MhLj855

..... court in chauhan v/s. state of gujarat is totally misplaced. even otherwise, the orders granting sanction have to be scrutinised in the light of section 19 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 and the law laid down by the honble supreme court from time to time including in the latest decision reported in air 2007 scw 1415 (prakash singh badal v. state ..... of sanction. according to the learned judge apart from the fact that such an exercise is impressible in law, additionally, the authority has ignored section 7 and 12 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988. therefore, he held that it is not possible to close the case. after making such observations, the special judge rejected the application of the prosecution and referred the matter ..... illegal or vitiated by any errors apparent as contended by the petitioners. the impugned orders are in public interest and in tune with the object and purpose of the prevention of corruption act, 1988. consequently the writ petitions fail. rule stands discharged.26. before concluding, it is necessary to invite the attention of all concerned to the object and purpose of the ..... prosecution of the petitioner and the co-accused shinde in the court of competent jurisdiction for offences punishable under section 7, 12 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988. the order passed on 7.5.2002 and the subsequent act of the sanctioning authority of grant of sanction is under challenge in this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure read .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 2008 (HC)

Shri Bhaskar Shankar Wagh Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (2008)110BOMLR935

..... of the assets were allegedly acquired prior to coming into force of the amended provision of section 13(1)(e) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 and hence, the offence committed prior to the amendment of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 cannot be made punishable under the amended provision which puts on an extra burden on the accused to explain the known lawful ..... husband and wife interse, have been convicted for offences punishable under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 and section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 read with section 109 of the i.p. code, respectively. appellant bhaskar wagh (original accused no. 1) has been sentenced to ..... satisfactory account, it is manifest that they are both guilty of 'criminal misconduct' within the meaning of section 13(1)(e) and section 13(2) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988.33. the prosecution evidence reveals that appellant bhaskar wagh was a class-iii public servant with meagre salary. he did not possess considerable agricultural land. the various panchanamas ..... motion, then the old enactment was in force and the prosecution delayed filing of the chargesheet, which was filed after the provision of section 13(1)(e) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 came to be amended. that would not, however, attract the amended provision and, hence, the prosecution is, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, vitiated. they .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 2005 (HC)

PravIn Kumar Vs. the State

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2005CriLJ2714

..... into any complaint against any official belonging to such category of officials specified in sub-section (2) wherein it is alleged that he has committed an offence under the prevention of corruption act, 1988 (49 of 1988) and an offence with which a public servant specified in sub-section (2) may, under the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged ..... is required to exercise superintendence over the functioning of the delhi special police establishment insofar as it relates to the investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the prevention of corruption act, 1988 or an offence with which a public servant specified in sub-section (2) may, under the code of criminal procedure be charged at the same trial. clause ..... into any complaint against any official belonging to such category of officials specified in sub-section (2) wherein it is alleged that he has committed an offence under the prevention of corruption act, 1988 and an offence with which a public servant specified in sub-section (2) may, under the code of criminal procedure, 1973 be charged at the same trial. ..... of special police establishment--(1) the superintendence of the delhi special police establishment insofar as it relates to investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the prevention of corruption act, 1988 shall vest in the commission.(2) save as otherwise provided in sub-section(1), the superintendence of the said police establishment in all other matters shall vest in .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //