Single judge gave time to the respondent to file a counter affidavit and submit documents regarding alleged demand and acceptance of bribe to determine applicability of Section 17A.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 11
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10203 of 2024
Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Choudhary Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation / Anti Corruption Bureau Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
parties it appears that the matter requires consideration.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]
Order Date :- 14.11.2024 Om
Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the cognizance of the case is patently illegal for lack of mandatory compliance under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Whether the absence of a demand or acceptance of bribe exempts the applicant from Section 17A compliance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi): (2023) 4 Supreme Court Cases 731Referred¶6
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ashok Kumar Choudhary
Central Bureau Of Investigation
Anti Corruption Bureau Lko.
Rajesh Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
