Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.58 seconds)

State vs . Ved Prakash Sharma Page 1 Of 29 on 31 October, 2014

9.1 I have heard the Ld. counsels and with their assistance perused the evidence on record and the documents proved. Accused is a public servant, amenable to provisions of POC Act, is proved by PW­11, who has proved his bio­data. Sanction to prosecute the accused was granted by Pawan Kumar Sharma (PW­3). It was suggested during the cross examination that PW­3 was not competent authority to remove the accused from service, which suggestion was denied by the witness. The defence has not being able to demonstrate that grant of sanction to prosecute the accused occasioned failure of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme court in State of Bihar Vs Raj Mangal Ram (2014 SCC on line SC 277 ) has held that trial cannot be scuttled unless the error, omission or irregularity in grant of sanction occasions failure of justice.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Onkar Prasad Shukla vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 September, 2015

The case of State of Bihar Vs. Raj Mangal Ram (supra) was a case in relation to interference in the proceeding midcourse on grounds of errors, omissions and irregularities in the sanctioning order and the Apex Court clearly ruled that in matters arising out of sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is also involved in the present case, unless there is any failure of justice occasioned it is not necessary for the High Court to interfere. In our opinion, the ratio of the said decision applies on the facts of the present case as well as discussed above.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rajesh Yadav @ Latari @ Rajesh Kumar ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 July, 2025

2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash charge-sheet dated 03.04.2025 as well as its cognizance order dated 25.04.2025 in G.T. no. 536 of 2025 (State vs. Raj Mangal and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 316 of 2023 under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, PS- Madhuban, District Mau as well as entire criminal proceeding of aforesaid case which is pending in court of learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional Session Judge, F.T.C. Ist, Mau.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Srivastava - Full Document
1