Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (3.56 seconds)
Documents citing Dir. Cbi vs Ashok Kumar Aswal on 18 March, 2015

Gopal Singh Bisht vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 28 January, 2019

22. It was also submitted on behalf of the CBI that during the cross examination of RK Srivastava as PW-15 on 26.08.2016 conducted on behalf of the petitioner herein, it was revealed that there was no question put to him regarding his competency to grant sanction for prosecution of the petitioner Gopal Singh Bisht and that even in the petition, there was no ground taken qua the incompetency of Shri RK Srivastava to grant sanction in the subject matter and that the said contention was raised only in the oral arguments made before the Court. It was further submitted on behalf of the CBI that the validity of the sanction letter should be left in the circumstances of the case to be determined in the course of the trial, and not in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC nor under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aswal (2015) SCC OnLine SC 1085 wherein it has been observed vide para-15 to the effect:
Delhi High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 2 - A Malhotra - Full Document

Shri Sandeep Silas vs Cbi & Ors. on 15 March, 2019

23. On the other hand, Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI while opposing the petitions, submits that the petitions themselves are not maintainable, as the legality of the impugned sanction order is essentially a matter of trial and cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC at this stage. While relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab [(2007) 1 SCC 1] and Director, CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aswal [(2015) 16 SCC 163], he states that the validity of a sanction order has to be tested on the touchstone of prejudice to the accused, which is essentially a question of fact that should be left to be determined in the course of trial. He submits that at this pre-mature stage, this Court only has the power to see whether the Sanctioning Authority was competent to pass the sanction order and if it had applied its mind to all the Crl.M.C. 3137/2017 & connected matters Page 17 of 51 relevant material before passing the same. Therefore, barring the question of the competence of the Sanctioning Authority and whether it had applied its mind to all the relevant material while passing the sanction order, everything else is a matter of trial and cannot be probed into by this Court at this stage.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - R Palli - Full Document

Deloitte Haskins And Sells Llp vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 April, 2020

117-- According to Shri Venegaonkar, all precedents cited by the petitioners in this respect deal with the cases of "no sanction" and hence, are not relevant. He has relied upon (2007) 1 SCC 1 : Prakash Singh Badal and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 1 SCC 532 : Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chairman, Airport Authorty of India and another, (2015) 16 SCC 163 : Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and another Vs. Ashok Kumar Aswal and another and (1974) 3 SCC 72 : The State of Rajasthan Vs. Tarachand Jain. On the strength of last 2 rulings, he claims that the accused has to prove the prejudice caused by alleged lacunae in the sanction during the trial. Not only this, the prosecution also gets opportunity to lead evidence to bring on record the material looked into & application of mind during the trial.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 1 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Kalpesh Mehta vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 April, 2020

117-- According to Shri Venegaonkar, all precedents cited by the petitioners in this respect deal with the cases of "no sanction" and hence, are not relevant. He has relied upon (2007) 1 SCC 1 : Prakash Singh Badal and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 1 SCC 532 : Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chairman, Airport Authorty of India and another, (2015) 16 SCC 163 : Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and another Vs. Ashok Kumar Aswal and another and (1974) 3 SCC 72 : The State of Rajasthan Vs. Tarachand Jain. On the strength of last 2 rulings, he claims that the accused has to prove the prejudice caused by alleged lacunae in the sanction during the trial. Not only this, the prosecution also gets opportunity to lead evidence to bring on record the material looked into & application of mind during the trial.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

N Sampath Ganesh vs Union Of India And Anr on 21 April, 2020

117-- According to Shri Venegaonkar, all precedents cited by the petitioners in this respect deal with the cases of "no sanction" and hence, are not relevant. He has relied upon (2007) 1 SCC 1 : Prakash Singh Badal and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 1 SCC 532 : Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chairman, Airport Authorty of India and another, (2015) 16 SCC 163 : Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and another Vs. Ashok Kumar Aswal and another and (1974) 3 SCC 72 : The State of Rajasthan Vs. Tarachand Jain. On the strength of last 2 rulings, he claims that the accused has to prove the prejudice caused by alleged lacunae in the sanction during the trial. Not only this, the prosecution also gets opportunity to lead evidence to bring on record the material looked into & application of mind during the trial.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 4 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Hari Sankaran vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 April, 2020

117-- According to Shri Venegaonkar, all precedents cited by the petitioners in this respect deal with the cases of "no sanction" and hence, are not relevant. He has relied upon (2007) 1 SCC 1 : Prakash Singh Badal and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 1 SCC 532 : Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chairman, Airport Authorty of India and another, (2015) 16 SCC 163 : Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and another Vs. Ashok Kumar Aswal and another and (1974) 3 SCC 72 : The State of Rajasthan Vs. Tarachand Jain. On the strength of last 2 rulings, he claims that the accused has to prove the prejudice caused by alleged lacunae in the sanction during the trial. Not only this, the prosecution also gets opportunity to lead evidence to bring on record the material looked into & application of mind during the trial.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

B S R And Associates Llp And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 21 April, 2020

117-- According to Shri Venegaonkar, all precedents cited by the petitioners in this respect deal with the cases of "no sanction" and hence, are not relevant. He has relied upon (2007) 1 SCC 1 : Prakash Singh Badal and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 1 SCC 532 : Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chairman, Airport Authorty of India and another, (2015) 16 SCC 163 : Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and another Vs. Ashok Kumar Aswal and another and (1974) 3 SCC 72 : The State of Rajasthan Vs. Tarachand Jain. On the strength of last 2 rulings, he claims that the accused has to prove the prejudice caused by alleged lacunae in the sanction during the trial. Not only this, the prosecution also gets opportunity to lead evidence to bring on record the material looked into & application of mind during the trial.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Udayan Sen vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 April, 2020

117-- According to Shri Venegaonkar, all precedents cited by the petitioners in this respect deal with the cases of "no sanction" and hence, are not relevant. He has relied upon (2007) 1 SCC 1 : Prakash Singh Badal and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 1 SCC 532 : Dinesh Kumar Vs. Chairman, Airport Authorty of India and another, (2015) 16 SCC 163 : Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and another Vs. Ashok Kumar Aswal and another and (1974) 3 SCC 72 : The State of Rajasthan Vs. Tarachand Jain. On the strength of last 2 rulings, he claims that the accused has to prove the prejudice caused by alleged lacunae in the sanction during the trial. Not only this, the prosecution also gets opportunity to lead evidence to bring on record the material looked into & application of mind during the trial.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document
1   2 3 Next