REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

M Subramani Appellant

V/S

STATE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

DHANESHWAR NARAIN SAXENA V. THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED]
M. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR V. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED]
V.D. JINGHAN V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED]
SHIV RAJ SINGH V. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED]
DALPAT SINGH AND ANR. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED]
TRILOK CHAND V. STATE OF DELHI [REFERRED]
MADHUKAR BHASKARRAO JOSHI V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]
STATE OF A.P. V. R. JEEVARATHINAM [REFERRED]
STATE V. K. NARASIMHACHARY [REFERRED]
T. SUBRAMANIAN V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED]
VENKATASUBBA RAO V. STATE [REFERRED]
SURAJ MAL V. STATE (DELHI ADMN.) [REFERRED]
MAN SINGH V. DELHI ADMN. [REFERRED]
PUNJABRAO V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]
CHIRONJILAL V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. DNYANESHWAR LAXMAN RAO [REFERRED]
C.M. GIRISH BABU V. CBI [REFERRED]
M NARSINGA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. S KRISHNAMURTHY [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PURNANDU BISWAS [REFERRED]
NOOR AGA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
JAYENDRA VISHNU THAKUR VS. STATE OF MAHARAHSTRA [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai, dated 04.08.2005 made in CC. No. 13/2003 convicting the Appellant for the offence Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short "PC Act") and sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- and in default to undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment and convicting him for the offence Under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/-and in default, to undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is as hereunder:

(3.) When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure ., as to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, he has denied each and every circumstances as contrary to the facts. He has also filed a written statement stating that he has completed the external work in respect of shifting and fixing the PCO and thereafter, he has no more work to do in respect of the connection. He has also stated that he never demanded any bribe amount from P.W.5 on 10.08.2002 or on 12.08.2002 and he has not received any amount as illegal gratification. He has also stated that he was requested by P.W.5 to come on 12.08.2002 for shifting the PCO to the nearby place from where it was already fixed by him on 10.08.2002 and at that time, the currency notes were thrusted in his hands and a false case has been foisted against him.

Click here to view full judgment.

M SUBRAMANI Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address