Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 161 (3.06 seconds)
Documents citing General Officer Commanding vs Cbi & Anr on 1 May, 2012

Kailash Chandra Purohit vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 20 February, 2026

78. Moving ahead, we may examine another decision : General Officer Commanding v. CBI. In a village in Jammu & Kashmir, terrorists killed about two scores of people. In the combing operations that immediately followed, five persons, purported to be terrorists, were killed by Rashtriya Rifles (RR) personnel in an "encounter". The earlier massacre was attributed to those five slain terrorists. Then the RR personnel came to face the charge of staging a fake encounter. The CBI investigated the crime and filed a chargesheet. The Army officers applied to the CJM, asserting that they could not be prosecuted except with the previous sanction of the Central Government because of Section 7 of the Armed Forces J & K (Special Powers) Act, 1990. On CJM's rejecting to entertain that objection, the matter eventually reached the Supreme Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr.Bibhu Prasad Acharya B.P.Acharya vs The Directorate Of Enforcement on 21 January, 2019

29. Coming to the other expression in General Officer Commanding, Rashtriya Rifles Vs. CBI25 on the scope of Cr.P.C. and Sections 6 & 7 of Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 Section 7 and earlier Act 1958 Section 6 provided inter alia of criminal proceedings shall not be instituted except with previous sanction of Central Government.
Telangana High Court Cites 124 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sri H D Kumaraswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 27 July, 2015

In General Officer Commanding Vs. CBI and another reported in AIR 2012 SC page 1890, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the question of sanction is of paramount importance for protecting a public servant who has acted in good faith while performing his duty. In order that the public servant may not be unnecessarily harassed on a complaint of an unscrupulous person, it is obligatory on the part of the executive authority to protect him. However, there must be a discernible connection between the act complained of and the powers and duties of the public servant. The complaint complained of may 46 fall within the description of the action purported to have been done in performing the official duty. Therefore, if the alleged act or omission of the public servant can be shown to have reasonable connection, inter-relationship or inseparably connected with discharge of his duty, he becomes entitled for protection of sanction. If the law requires sanction, and the court proceeds against a public servant without sanction, the public servant has a right to raise the issue of jurisdiction as the entire action may be rendered void-abinitio for want of sanction. Sanction can be obtained even during the course of trial depending upon the facts of an individual case and particularly at what stage of the proceedings, requirement of sanction has surfaced. The question as to whether the act complained of is done in performance of duty or in purported performance of duty, is to be determined by the Competent Authority and not by the court. The Legislature has conferred "absolute power" on the statutory authority to accord sanction or withhold the same and the court has no role in the subject. In such a situation, the court would not proceed without sanction of the Competent Statutory Authority.
Karnataka High Court Cites 85 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next