Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K.PANIGRAHI
Bamadev Sankhuala – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha(Vigilance) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of bribery case facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments against the demand and acceptance of bribe. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 22) |
| 3. importance of proving demand to establish bribery. (Para 12 , 13 , 24) |
| 4. opposing counsel's position on the validity of the charges. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. final order allowing the crlmc. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
Judgment :
S. K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The petitioner, in this application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C, seeks to challenge the order dated 20.01.2018 passed by Learned Special Judge Vigilance Dhenkanal in T.R. Case no. 72 of 2017 arising out of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 28 of 2016 wherein the learned trial court after taking cognizance of the case has been pleased to frame charge and directed the petitioner to be tried with two charges head for commission of offences punishable u/s 13(2) r/w s.7 & s.13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (hereinafter referred as “PC Act”) on the basis of the materials and documents submitted by the prosecution.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, as narrated in the charge sheet, is that on 19.05.2016 a written complaint was made before S.P Vigilance Cuttack by complain
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
