State vs AMRISH PURI Advocate - Madan Lal Yadav — 16/2021
Case under Prevention of Corruption Act Section 7. Status: Prosecution Evidence. Next hearing: 16th July 2026.
Session Case
CNR: RJSG200000652021
Next Hearing
16th July 2026
Filing Number
65/2021
Filing Date
12-11-2021
Registration No
16/2021
Registration Date
12-11-2021
Court
ACD CASES LABOUR COURT COMPLEX HQ
Judge
2-SPL SESSIONS JUDGE ACD COURT
FIR Details
FIR Number
83
Police Station
Anti corruption Bureau SGNR
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
AMRISH PURI Advocate - Madan Lal Yadav
Hearing History
Judge: 2-SPL SESSIONS JUDGE ACD COURT
Prosecution Evidence
Framing of Charge/ Plea
Framing of Charge/ Plea
Framing of Charge/ Plea
Hearing arguments on Charge
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-05-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 04-04-2026 | Framing of Charge/ Plea |
| 12-03-2026 | Framing of Charge/ Plea |
| 03-02-2026 | Framing of Charge/ Plea |
| 17-12-2025 | Hearing arguments on Charge |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State v. Amrish Puri (Session Case 16/2021) Outcome: Charges framed against accused Amrish Puri under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court found prima facie evidence that Amrish Puri, a company employee, had demanded a bribe of ₹3,600 (at ₹200 per quintal for 18 quintals of mung beans) from a farmer on 19.12.2017 in exchange for purchasing his produce. The investigation and documentary evidence established sufficient grounds to frame charges of corruption against the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State v. Amrish Puri (Session Case 16/2021) Outcome: Charges framed against accused Amrish Puri under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court found prima facie evidence that Amrish Puri, a company employee, had demanded a bribe of ₹3,600 (at ₹200 per quintal for 18 quintals of mung beans) from a farmer on 19.12.2017 in exchange for purchasing his produce. The investigation and documentary evidence established sufficient grounds to frame charges of corruption against the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts