Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. He submits that in the said Judgment, again the case of Subramanian Swamy was discussed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court 2025:JHHC:35377 has taken into consideration the guidelines made therein, unless it is incorporated in the statute, deemed to be not existing.

13. Relying upon the above Judgments, he submits that now the Legislature has taken care of by way of incorporating Section 218 of BNSS, 2023 and even the prevention of corruption cases are governed by changed provision. He submits that while taking cognizance in the case, the learned Court has considered the deemed sanction in light of provisions made under Section 218 of BNSS, 2023. He submits that all the Judgments relied by the petitioner were prior of enforcement of BNSS, 2023, which was affected from 01.07.2024. In view of that, he submits that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance.

16. The Judgment relied by the learned counsel appearing for the CBI in the case of Suneeti Toteja (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the case of Subramanian Swamy (Supra) and held that deemed sanction is not incorporated in the statute and in absence of that if the deemed sanction will be considered, the accused will be prejudiced. However, in light of proviso of Section 218 of BNSS, 2023, the said care has been taken by the Legislature. Now the cognizance order has been passed after implementation of BNSS, 2023. In the entire petition, what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, that is not stated and if there is no miscarriage of justice and the investigation has already been done, the learned Court has taken the cognizance, the entire criminal proceeding cannot be quashed and reference may be made to the case of H.N. Rishbud v. State (Delhi 2025:JHHC:35377 Admn.) reported in (1954) 2 SCC 934 in which para-13, it has been held as under: -