Arvind Mishra vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. ... on 25 August, 2022
The leaned counsel has also placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in (2008) 3 ADJ 413 (Lallan Prasad V. State of U.P. and Noorul Haq) to submit that in absence of a proper and valid sanction earlier the trial Court was incompetent to take cognizance and record any evidence. It was a defect, which could not be cured by the Court itself, as it was a fundamental legal defect inasmuch as, in absence of proper and legal sanction, the Court was incompetent to take cognizance and record the evidence. The Court could not have taken cognizance for want of proper and legal sanction and, it would not have proceeded further and, after proper sanction, denovo trial has to take place. It has also been submitted that if it is a denovo trial, the evidence that was led in the previous trial, cannot be received in the subsequent denovo trial. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The earlier trial was coram non judice, therefore, he submits that this application may be allowed.