Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 546 (1.82 seconds)
Documents citing Mohd. Iqbal, Ahmad vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 January, 1979

Karanit Singh vs State Rep By on 29 June, 2011

In AIR 1979 SC 677 (Mohd.Iqbal Ahmed vs State of Andhra Pradesh),cited supra, the supreme court has held that this should be done in two ways. Either by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction or by adducing evidence aliunde to show that the facts have been placed before the sanctioning authority and satisfaction is arrived at by the authority. The Apex court has also further held that it is well settled that any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail, because, this being a manifest defect in the prosecutiion, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - A Ali - Full Document

Asstt. Collector Of Cus., R And I (P) vs Hussain Abbas Shaikh And Others on 2 December, 1991

In the aforesaid ground what has been mentioned is that failure to formally prove the sanction cannot be fatal to the prosecution, which is completely in contradiction to what has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, , supra. Further in the said ground it has been stated that the accused have not objected the aforesaid ground. Shri Menon, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 2, contended that in fact objection on the basis of sanction was argued but since from the evidence the case of the accused being of clear acquittal, he wanted observations from the Court on the facts so that the same observations of the Court would come to his help in the departmental proceedings. Shri Menon was also appearing on behalf of the accused during the course of trial. Surprisingly it is mentioned in the said ground that the failure on the part of the appellant to formally prove the sanction cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution. From the said contention in the appeal memo itself it is clear that even at the stage of High Court, there was no intention on the part of the appellant to produce sanction. On the contrary, according to the appellant, even at the time of the arguments, the argument was that the sanction is just a formality and, therefore, failure on the part of the appellant to prove the sanction is not fatal to the prosecution. I am surprised to hear such type of argument. However, it is suffice to say that all these arguments are contrary to the observations of the Supreme Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Periyasamy vs Inspector, Vigilance And ... on 24 September, 1992

In the case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. The Supreme Court further went on the stress that the prosecution cannot be given a chance to produce material in the appeal before the Supreme Court to satisfy that the Sanctioning Authority had duly applied its mind to the fact constituting the offence. It was also held "in a criminal case the Supreme Court for that matter any Court should not ordinarily direct fresh evidence to fill up a lacuna deliberately left by the prosecution".
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

M/S World Phone And Another vs Sanyam Suresh Joshi on 24 September, 2014

9. Heavy reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Mohd . Iqbal Ahmad Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported as AIR 1979 Supreme Court 677 which was also quoted and relied upon in another judgment of Rajasthan High Court titled as S.G.Kale Vs Union of India reported as (2001) 168 CTR Rajasthan 214 decided on 19.3.2001 wherein , it was observed here as under:
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S World Phone And Another vs Sanyam Suresh Joshi on 24 September, 2014

9. Heavy reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Mohd . Iqbal Ahmad Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported as AIR 1979 Supreme Court 677 which was also quoted and relied upon in another judgment of Rajasthan High Court titled as S.G.Kale Vs Union of India reported as (2001) 168 CTR Rajasthan 214 decided on 19.3.2001 wherein , it was observed here as under:
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Md. Rashid Khan vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 13 April, 1994

It has, therefore, been suggested that the sanction is in respect of non-existent offences and that it is not a sanction in respect of any offence under the TADA Act of 1987 as required by Section 20A(2) of the Act and that it is not a sanction in respect of offences Under Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA Act of which cognizance was taken by the Designated Court on June 14, 1993. The sancion in the aforesaid manner according to the learned Advocate for the petitioner shows complete non-application of mind by the Commissioner of Police while making that order and according to him the order of sanction is accordingly, bad. It has further been submitted that it is settled law that an order for sanction must be strictly construed and that statutory provisions relating thereto must be strictly complied with. Reliance was placed upon the judgment and decision in the case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, . In the aforesaid decision the Supreme Court at page 679 of the said report observed inter alia as follows:
Calcutta High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.B.I. vs . 1.Sh. Lala Ram S/O Sh. Lakhmi Singh on 4 August, 2010

Ld. Counsel for the accused relied upon judgment titled as "Mohammad Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh: AIR 1979 Supreme Court 677". Hon'ble Court had held therein that it was incumbent on the prosecution to prove that valid sanction had been granted by the authority. The authority should be satisfied that case for sanction had been made out. In the case in hand PW-39 had very categorically deposed that while according sanction he had carefully examined the documents.
Delhi District Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

J.Jayalalitha vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Wealth ... on 27 June, 2011

20. Yet another ground urged on behalf of the petitioner seeking discharge is that the failure on the part of the petitioner to file the wealth tax return in time was not wilful and only a wilful failure to file the return shall be a punishable offence under section 35-B of the Act and that this aspect was not at all considered by the sanctioning authority. To counter the said argument, the learned Senior Special Public Prosecutor for Income Tax Cases, has referred to section 35-O of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and contended that the mental element of the assessee in such cases shall be presumed and the assessee, who wants to prove the absence of the mental element, has to take it as a plea of defence and prove it in trial. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of the Apex Court in In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P. reported in 1979 SCC (Cri) 926. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made the following observation:-
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P R Shivakumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next