Tag: bribery case

The-Indian-Penal-Code-–-Fraud-BriberyThe-Indian-Penal-Code-–-Fraud-Bribery

The Indian Penal Code – Fraud & Bribery Shorts 

1. Wearing clothing or conveying token utilized by local official with deceitful plan. — Whoever, not having a place with a specific class of local officials, wears any clothing or conveys any token looking like any attire or token utilized by that class of community workers, with the expectation that it could be accepted, or with the the information that it is probably going to be accepted, that he has a place with that class of local officials, will be rebuffed with detainment of one or the other depiction for a term which might reach out to 90 days, or with fine which might stretch out to 200 rupees, or with both. 

2. Deceitful evacuation or disguise of property to forestall its seizure as relinquished or in 

execution. — Whoever falsely eliminates, disguises, moves or conveys to any individual any property or 

any interest in that, meaning subsequently to forestall that property or interest in that from being taken as a relinquishment or in fulfillment of a fine, under a sentence which has been articulated, or which he knows to probably be articulated, by a Court of Justice or other skilled power, or from being taken in execution of an announcement or request which has been made, or which he knows to probably be made by a Courtroom in a common suit, will be rebuffed with detainment of one or the other depiction for a term which may stretch out to two years or with fine, or with both. 

3. False case to property to forestall its seizure as relinquished or in execution. — Whoever falsely acknowledges, gets or asserts any property or any interest in that, realizing that he has no right or then again legitimate case to such property or interest, or practices any trickiness contacting any right to any property or on the other hand any interest in that, proposing in this way to forestall that property or interest in that from being taken as a relinquishment or in fulfillment of a fine, under a sentence which has been articulated, or which he knows to probably be articulated by a Court of Justice or other capable power, or from being taken in execution of a pronouncement or request which has been made, or which he knows to probably be made by a Official courtroom in a common suit, will be rebuffed with detainment of one or the other portrayal for a term which may reach out to two years, or with fine, or with both. 

4. Falsely languishing order over aggregate not due. — Whoever deceitfully causes or experiences a pronouncement or request to be passed against him at the suit of any individual for an aggregate not due or for a bigger total than is because of such individual or for any property or interest in property to which such individual isn’t entitled, or then again falsely causes or experiences a pronouncement or request to be executed against him after it has been fulfilled, or for anything in regard of which it has been fulfilled, will be rebuffed with detainment of by the same token portrayal for a term which might reach out to two years, or with fine, or with both. Delineation An organizations a suit against Z. Z, realizing that An is probably going to get an announcement against him, deceitfully experiences a judgment to pass against him for a bigger sum at the suit of B, who has no case against him, all together that B, either for his own or to assist Z, may partake in the returns of any offer of Z’s property which might be made under An’s announcement. Z has committed an offense under this part. 

5. Contemptibility making bogus case in Court. — Whoever falsely or unscrupulously, or with plan to harm or pester any individual, makes in a Court of Justice any case which he knows to be bogus, will be rebuffed with detainment of one or the other portrayal for a term which might stretch out to two years, and will additionally be obligated to fine. 

6. Conveyance of coin, moved by information that it is fake. — Whoever, having any fake coin, which when he became had of it, he knew to be fake, falsely or with goal that extortion might be committed, conveys something similar to any people or endeavors to initiate any individual to get it, will be rebuffed with detainment of one or the other depiction for a term which might stretch out to five years, and will likewise be responsible to fine. 

7.  Destroying composing from substance bearing Government stamp, or eliminating from report a stamp utilized for it, with purpose to make misfortune Government. — Whoever, deceitfully or with aim to make misfortune the Government, eliminates or destroys from any substance, bearing any stamp gave by Government with the end goal of income, any composition or report for which such stamp has been utilized, or eliminates from any composition or report a stamp which has been utilized for such composition or record, in request that such stamp might be utilized for an alternate composition or record, will be rebuffed with detainment of one or the other depiction for a term which might stretch out to three years, or with fine, or with both. 

8. Cheating. — Whoever, by misdirecting any individual, falsely or unscrupulously actuates the individual so misdirected to convey any property to any individual, or to assent that any individual will hold any property, or on the other hand deliberately prompts the individual so bamboozled to do or discard to do anything which he wouldn’t do or overlook in the event that he were not really deluded, and which act or oversight causes or is probably going to make harm or mischief that individual in body, psyche, notoriety or property, is said to “cheat”.

Clarification. — An untrustworthy covering of realities is a trickiness inside the importance of this segment. Outlines 

(a) A, by erroneously claiming to be in the Civil Service, purposefully tricks Z, and hence untrustworthily prompts Z to let him have using a loan products for which he doesn’t intend to pay. A cheats. 

(b) A, by putting a fake blemish on an article, deliberately beguiles Z into a conviction that this article was made by a certain praised maker, and along these lines deceptively initiates Z to purchase and pay for the article. A cheats. 

(c) A, by showing to Z a misleading example of an article deliberately bamboozles Z into accepting that the article compares with the example, and accordingly deceptively incites Z to purchase and pay for the article. A cheats. 

(d) A, by offering in installment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no cash, and by which An anticipates that the bill will be disrespected, deliberately hoodwinks Z, and in this way insincerely prompts Z to convey the article, meaning not to pay for it. A cheats. 

(e) A, by promising as jewel articles which he knows are not precious stones, purposefully misdirects Z, and subsequently untrustworthily instigates Z to loan cash. A cheats. 

(f) An Intentionally hoodwinks Z into a conviction that A way to reimburse any cash that Z might loan to him and in this way untrustworthily prompts Z to loan him cash, A not planning to reimburse it. A cheats. 

(g) A purposefully hoodwinks Z into a conviction that A way to convey to Z a specific amount of indigo plant which he doesn’t expect to convey, and accordingly insincerely instigates Z to propel cash upon the confidence of such conveyance. A cheats; however in the event that A, at the season of acquiring the cash, means to convey the indigo plant, and subsequently breaks his agreement and doesn’t convey it, he doesn’t cheat, yet is at risk just to a common activity for break of agreement. 

(h) A purposefully deludes Z into a conviction that A has played out An’s essential for an agreement made with Z, which he has not performed, and accordingly untrustworthily initiates Z to pay cash. A cheats. 

(I) A sells and passes a domain on to B. A, knowing that in result of such deal he has no option to the property, sells or contracts something very similar to Z, without uncovering the reality of the past deal and movement to B, and gets the buy or contract cash from Z. A cheats. 

9. A demonstration or offense is supposed to be committed in outcome of abetment, when it is committed in the result of the actuation, or compatibility of the intrigue, or with the guide which is the abetment. 

Representations 

(a) An offers a pay off to B, a community worker, as a prize for showing A some blessing in the activity of B’s true capacities. B takes hush-money. A has abetted the offense characterized in area 161. 

(b) A prompts B to give bogus proof. B, as the result of the actuation, commits that offense. An is at legitimate fault for abetting that offense, and is responsible to a similar discipline as B. 

(c) An and B plot to harm Z. A, in compatibility of the scheme, acquires the toxin and conveys it to B all together that he may oversee it to Z. B, in compatibility of the trick, mavanages the toxin to Z in A’s nonappearance and in this way causes Z’s passing. Here B is at legitimate fault for homicide. An is at legitimate fault for abetting that offense by trick, and is at risk to the discipline for homicide. . Pay off. — (1) Whoever — 

(I) gives a satisfaction to any individual with the object of instigating him or some other individual to practice any appointive right or of compensating any individual for having practiced any such right; or 

(ii) acknowledges either for himself or for some other individual any satisfaction as a prize for working out any such right or for initiating or endeavoring to instigate some other individual to practice any such right, commits the offense of pay off: 

Given that a statement of public approach or a guarantee of public activity will not be an offense under this part. 

(2) An individual who offers, or consents to give, or offers or endeavors to acquire, a delight will be considered to give a satisfaction. 

(3) An individual who gets or consents to acknowledge or endeavors to get a delight will be considered to acknowledge a delight, and an individual who acknowledges a satisfaction as an intention in doing what he doesn’t mean to do, or as a prize for doing what he has not done, will be considered to have acknowledged the delight as a prize. 

Download the PDF Document Click Here

Someshwar Srivastava

Rakesh Asthana Given Protection from Arrest in CBI Bribery Case 

The Delhi High Court reprimanded the CBI, also known as the Central Bureau of Investigation, to maintain its status in the proceedings against its former director General Rakesh Asthana. Further, they granted him protection from police arrest. The court also directed the CBI to respond to the special director’s petition seeking the dismissal of an FIR against him in relation to a case of bribery involving meat exporter Moin Qureshi. 

Asthana and Devender Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police filed petitions against CBI’s case accusing them of taking bribes. The court is hearing their petitions out.  

The National Democratic Alliance led by the BJP sent the 2 top officials of CBI- Director Alok Verma & Special Asthana on leave over accusations of corruption and bribery.  

CBI was instructed to file its response to the two petitions after the probe agency sought more time & informed the court that case files have been sent to the Central Vigilance Commission. The instruction was given by a bench of Justice Najmi Waziri. 

bribery case

Jamia Millia Islamia Professor Arrested in Bribery Case – CBI

Information Source – NDTV.com

In regards to a 1 lakh bribery case, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has arrested a professor in the department of Civil Engineering of Jamia Millia Islamia University. 

Khalid Moin, the professor, has been accused of accepting bribes and posting structural stability certificates to various projects. 

Moin had allegedly given the stability certificates to the Chintels Paradiso apartment in Gurugram, part of which had collapsed last month crushing 2 women to death. The arrest, however, was not related to the collapsing incident. 

He was arrested on the grounds of accepting bribes from a Delhi-based Architecture firm. 

More arrests were made in the form of Prakhar Pawar of M/S Vyom Architect & Abid Khan, an employee of the same firm. 

As quoted by CBI, s earches were being conducted in the residences of the accused. 

The university has also refrained from any action stating that the matter was his personal consultancy related. CBI has recovered cash amounting to Rs. 30 Lakh and bank account details having funds of Rs. 1.19 Crore. 

The CBI upon receiving information about the alleged bribe exchange, laid a trap & caught the professor along with his accomplices. 

The accused will be produced before a designated court in Delhi.

Manoj Prasad vs CBI: Court grants clean chit to Asthana

The CBI has been slammed by a Delhi high court regarding a bribery case involving former special director Rakesh Asthana. 

Responding to the investigation carried out by CBI, judge Sanjeev Aggarwal accused CBI of not conducting the case properly and raised questions about how they arrested their own DSP in the case filed by Hyderabad based businessman Satish Babu Sana.

The CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) is the sole and primary investigating agency of India.

The CBI originally solved low profile cases like corruption and bribery, it soon was given power to solve high level cases at the multinational and international level.  

In hindsight though CBI has previously been accused of tampering evidence in multiple cases and reversing the case direction towards its own investigating officers accusing them of multiple cases. 

In this case, Sana accused Asthana of demanding bribes from him in exchange for sparing him any action in regards to the case involving a meat exporter, Moin Qureshi. 

The case involving Qureshi was filed back in 2017.

Rakesh was the main head leading the special unit questioning Sana when he accused him of taking bribes.

CBI in the past has many instances of facing off with other legal law enforcement agencies for example ITA (Income Tax Authorities), IB (Intelligence Bureau), Directorate of Enforcement and many more police forces of different states. 

This happens because CBI lacks legal powers to operate on an all-India basis. 

Such cases don’t sit well with a legal system where rule of law is firstly paramount.
CBI also arrested Manoj Prasad the main accused in the bribery case because Sana also accused him of taking a bribe to give him a clean chit.