Abuse of dominant position allegations against an exchange found not prima facie; regulator reliance on sectoral expertise upheld and no investigation...
Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
Criminal-liability analysis distinguishes failure to prove conspiracy from proof of a substantive bribery offence: the court upheld that no prior meeting of minds established Section 120B criminal conspiracy, but reinstated conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demand and acceptance against the second accused. The conviction rested on trap proceedings corroborated by trap officers, independent witnesses, contemporaneous pre-trap documentation and identification of marked notes; electronic voice recordings were excluded. The court emphasised that a co-accused's statement alone cannot substitute for independent proof to fasten guilt on another accused.
Criminal-liability analysis distinguishes failure to prove conspiracy from proof of a substantive bribery offence: the court upheld that no prior meeting of minds established Section 120B criminal conspiracy, but reinstated conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demand and acceptance against the second accused. The conviction rested on trap proceedings corroborated by trap officers, independent witnesses, contemporaneous pre-trap documentation and identification of marked notes; electronic voice recordings were excluded. The court emphasised that a co-accused's statement alone cannot substitute for independent proof to fasten guilt on another accused.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
