Supreme Court of India
C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. Th. I.P.
INSC stands for INDIAN SUPREME COURT. A neutral citation scheme assigned by the Court itself, so a judgment can be cited without depending on a commercial law reporter. INSC is the neutral citation scheme assigned by the Supreme Court, so a judgment can be cited without depending on a commercial law reporter.
4 Supreme Court benches have cited this judgment.
What the Court ordered
We are of the opinion that both the ingredients to bring tt;e act within the mischief of Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act are satisfied.
Judgment, page 15
From the headnote
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7 and 13 (1)(d) rlw s. 13 (2) -Demand of illegal gratification by public servant and voluntary acceptance thereof - Conviction and sentence ulss. 7 and 13 (1 )(dj rlw s. 13(2) by courts below- Justification of - Held: Justified - Ingredients of ss. 7 and 13(1 )(d)(ii) satisfied - There is evidence of demand of illegal gratification and voluntary acceptance thereof - Evidence of contractor, o shadow witness and Inspector who laid the trap, satisfactory - Contractor who gave bribe, cannot be said to be an accomplice as the same was extorted from him…
Authorities it was built on
Where later benches applied it
- 2016 Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab
- 2015 L. Laxmikanta v. State by Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta
- 2014 B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P.
- 2022 Neeraj Dutta v. State (govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
Of those, 3 relied on · 1 referred to
Sign in free to read it
- The full judgment, page by page, as published in the Supreme Court Reports
- The ratio: what the Court held, verbatim, with the page it sits on
- Every bench that relied on it, and every bench that argued against it
- Search every reported judgment, by party, citation or question
- Download the PDF, copy pinpoint citations ready for a filing
An email address, no password.