IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
A N PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C' hereinafter) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner for setting aside the Order dated 27.11.2020 vide which the Closure Report filed by the Respondent- CBI in FIR RC-DAI-2019-A0022, under Section 120 B read with Sections 7/12/13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been rejected and Order dated 15.02.2021 vide which he has been summoned.
2. The brief background, as spelt out by the Petitioner is that upon his selection by UPSC in February, 2017, he joined Employees State Insurance Corporation (henceforth referred to as “ESIC”) as Deputy Director and was promoted to the post of Joint Director in March, 2008. He performed all his duties and responsibilities with full devotion and commitment and his ACR/APAR has always been above the zone of consideration and he had received commendations for his work as well.
3. Procurement Demand of 10 Racks: On 25.08.2017, requisition of 10 Racks was made by the Medical Record Officer- Prem Raj to the Medical Superintendent, ESIC Hospital, Basaidarapur. On 30.08.2017, the Assistant Director-Narendra Dahiya, issued
State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede
B Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh
P. Satyanaryana Murthy v. District Inspector
N. Vijaya Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu
Swatantar Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
A.B Bhaskars Rao Vs. Inspector of Police, CBI, Vishakhapatnam
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.