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

1996 Supreme(Del) 832

S.K.MAHAJAN
SUKH RAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE (CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION) – Respondent


S. K. Mahajan, J.

( 1 ) AFTER registration of the case FIR No. RC- 3a/96/cbi/acu (IV) under Section 120-B and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner and two other persons, various premises of the petitioner were searched when large amount of cash and other assets were recovered. The Central Bureau of Investigation also came to know about the petitioner owning various immovable properties. The assets which were recovered and which had come to the knowledge of the Central Bureau of Investigation were substantially dis-proportionate to his known sources of income for which, according to the CBI, there was no prima facie explanation. A case FIR No. RC-4a/96 was, therefore, registered against the petitioner under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (l) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

( 2 ) AT the time of registration of the earlier FIR being RC-3a/96 and at the time of search, the petitioner was out of the country having allegedly gone to the United Kingdom for his medical treatment. On his return from abroad on 16th September, 1996, he was arrested at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi itself
















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