Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

As against this, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 as well as Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the Vigilance, submit that sanction can be granted at any stage of the case which has been a settled proposition of law and thereby the order taking cognizance cannot be said to be bad.

In support of the submissions, numbers of decisions rendered in the cases of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh and another {(2012) 3 SCC 64}, Vineet Narain and others Vs. Union of India and another {(1998) 1 SCC 226}, Manzoor Ali Khan Vs. Union of India & Ors. {2014 (3) JBCJ 531(SC)}, K. Kalimuthu Vs. State of by D.S.P.{(2005) 4 SCC 512} and Dharam Pal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. {2014 (1) JBCJ 539 (SC)} have been referred to in this regard.

In the case of Subramanian Swamy (supra) whatever observation with respect to sanction being not required is there, that is in the context that the person after abusing or misusing the powers of the offence had demitted the offence. Moreover, the core question, which fell for consideration in the case of Subramanian Swamy (supra), was that whether a complaint can be filed by a citizen for prosecuting a public servant for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and whether the authority is competent to grant sanction of a public servant for offences under 1988 Act which is required to take appropriate decision within the time specified in the case of Vineet Narain and others (supra)?