Citation network
Cbi vs.dr. As Narayan Rao
Cites for this judgment
- Delhi High Court
- Jul 01, 2019
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
(2017) 8 SCC136Search
-
(2016) 12 SCC150Search
-
(2013) 14 SCC153Search
-
(2015) 11 SCC314Search
-
(2011) 10 SCC192Search
-
Respondent DR. AS NARAYAN RAO v. RepresentedSearch
-
Briefly stated, prosecution case is that on 29th January 2009, v. SwaminathanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
P.M., v. SwaminathanSearch
-
for the clearance of issuance of export license. The respondent asked v. SwaminathanSearch
-
of two independent witnesses namely S. Sridhar, Officer, Corporation Bank and Shiv Prasad Badola, Clerk, CPWD and called v. SwaminathanSearch
-
Vikas Pathak, Nikhil Malhotra and other subordinate staff was constituted. The CBI trap team, independent witnesses and v. SwaminathanSearch
-
clean glass tumblers, sodium carbonate powder, sealing material, CBI Brass seal and phenolphthalein powder were arranged. v. SwaminathanSearch
-
the demonstration of use. Thereafter, Shiv Prasad Badola kept the tainted bribe amount in the right side pant pocket of v. SwaminathanSearch
-
Thereafter, v. SwaminathanSearch
-
P.M. S. Shridhar was asked to act as the shadow witness and to remain with v. SwaminathanSearch
-
transaction of bribe. He was instructed to pass on a signal of transaction of bribe by rubbing his face with both hands. v. SwaminathanSearch
-
members.6. On completion of the pre-trap proceedings, Rajesh Chahal along with the trap team members, both witnesses and v. SwaminathanSearch
-
reached Karol Bagh near the hotel where v. SwaminathanSearch
-
P.M. DVR was handed over to v. SwaminathanSearch
-
P.M., he received a call from v. SwaminathanSearch
-
of the bribe. All the trap team members rushed to Room No.101 of India Palace Guest House. He took the DVR form v. SwaminathanSearch
-
and switched it off. When he entered the room, he found the shadow witness sitting on the sofa, v. SwaminathanSearch
-
to narrate the conversation and transaction of bribe to which the shadow witness stated that after reaching Room 101, v. SwaminathanSearch
-
DVR and made a call to the respondent from his mobile phone after putting the speaker in on mode. The respondent informed v. SwaminathanSearch
-
Page 4 of 16 entered the room who was introduced by v. SwaminathanSearch
-
to him as AS Narayan Rao. Then after having the conversation regarding the bribe, v. SwaminathanSearch
-
Accordingly, v. SwaminathanSearch
-
his both hands and then kept the same in his right-side pant pocket. Sridhar further informed the trap team that when v. SwaminathanSearch
-
to show why Vineet Aggarwal, SP CBI visited DGFT office to meet Dr. Shyam Aggarwal even before the complaint was filed by v. SwaminathanSearch
-
First complaint which was actually the first information given by v. SwaminathanSearch
-
inquiry report has been placed on record.10. In his cross-examination v. SwaminathanSearch
-
Vijay Bisht, receptionist of Hotel India Guest House, Delhi produced the record of the hotel and testified that v. SwaminathanSearch
-
to show the delay of twenty days in lodging the FIR.11. Furthermore, the recorded conversation of the respondent and v. SwaminathanSearch
-
on or before 9th January 2009 was also not established. In the complaint dated 29th January 2009 it was alleged by v. SwaminathanSearch
-
should be paid at the earliest. In his testimony v. SwaminathanSearch
-
These facts have not been mentioned in the complaint filed by v. SwaminathanSearch
-
and have only been stated for the first time in his deposition before the court.13. A perusal of the testimonies of v. SwaminathanSearch
-
The motive for demand of illegal gratification has not been established. As per the charge-sheet, application of v. SwaminathanSearch
-
the respondent. It is contended that the fact of acceptance of bribe was proved by the Shadow Witness who stated that v. SwaminathanSearch
-
accepted the same and kept the amount in his pant pocket. The fact of the acceptance of bribe has also been proved by v. SwaminathanSearch
-
Secretary. He further submits that on the date of the incident that is 2nd February 2009 the respondent went to meet v. SwaminathanSearch
-
him that his CEO Mr. Ramesh Aiyar wanted to meet him to seek advice on Dr. Shyam Aggarwal, Chairman demanding bribe from v. SwaminathanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial