SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 1767

K.T.THOMAS, R.P.SETHI
State Of H. P. – Appellant
Versus
SATYA DEV SHARMA – Respondent


( 1 ) WE are disposing of all these criminal appeals by this common judgment as it is convenient and advantageous to deal with all these together. They relate to three different criminal cases charge-sheeted before the Court of Special Judge, Shimla, established for trial of offences under the prevention of Corruption Act.

( 2 ) IN each of these three cases, officials of the State Government were arrayed along with private persons for facing charge for offences under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 218, 379, 467, 468, 471, 419 of the Indian Penal Code, besides Section 33 of the Indian forest Act and also Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. During the pendency of the trial of these cases, some of the accused arrayed have died and the criminal proceedings became abated in respect of those persons. The trial proceeded as against the remaining accused and ultimately the trial Judge convicted the accused in all the three cases principally under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and also for different other counts of offences linked to criminal conspiracy. All of them were sentenced to different terms of imprisonment under different cou












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top