The Union of India v. Chiranji Lal
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Respondent No.1/accused was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and by Judgment and Order dated 6th February, 2007 the learned Special Judge acquitted respondent No.1/accused for the said offence.…
Judgment
Smt.U.V.Kejariwal, Advocate, for applicant Ms.A.A.Mane, A.P.P, for the State CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2008 P.C. . Heard.
Operative part
Respondent No.1/accused was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and by Judgment and Order dated 6th February, 2007 the learned Special Judge acquitted respondent No.1/accused for the said offence. There is a delay of 216 days in preferring the appeal as the matter was required to 2 be moved to several authorities of the Government Department. Under these circumstances, delay is condoned. Application is allowed.
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 21 Jul 2008. The bench was K U CHANDIWAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.