Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 128 (1.95 seconds)
Documents citing Sambhoo Nath Misra vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 14 March, 1997

V.E.Badarudeen vs State Of Kerala on 7 September, 2001

22. As regards the second accused is concerned, he was not a member of the panchayath at the time when cognizance was taken and Section 122 of the Panchayath Raj Act is not applicable to him. Similarly, since he was not Crl.Appeal Nos.907 & 908 of 2001 27 in office, Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is also not applicable. Since he was not a person removable from service and since offence against him was conspiracy and misappropriation of public fund, no sanction is required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as has been held in the decision reported in Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P. and Others [1997 Crl.L.J.2491 (SC)] and Raghunath Anant Govilkar v. State of Maharashtra and Others [2008 (11) SCC 289] and N.Bhargavan Pillai (died) L.Rs. and another v. State of Kerala (AIR 2004 SC 2317). Further want of sanction or defect in sanction is not a ground for acquittal in the appeal, unless prejudice has been established by the accused.
Kerala High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

1 Scc 478, State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sheetla Sahai And Others on 21 March, 2016

19. No doubt, in Shambhoo Nath Mishra v. State of U.P and others (supra), it was held that the fabrication of record and misappropriation of public fund is not part of official duty of the public servants, but the said observations are required to be considered in the light of the peculiar facts involved in the said case. In the said case, a complaint was filed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 409/420/465/468/477A and 109 IPC with the allegations that the accused persons had fabricated the signature of complainant and after forging his signature, they withdrew the amount from his account and misappropriated the same. On the basis of these peculiar facts, it was held that it was not official duty of public servant to fabricate the record and misappropriate the public fund. Thus, the said judgment is also not helpful to the prosecution as the facts of the case at hand are totally different.
Delhi District Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cbi vs . M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd. & Ors. on 6 October, 2020

(SCC p. 328) '5. The question is when the public servant is alleged to have committed the offence of fabrication of record or misappropriation of public fund, etc. can he be said to have acted in discharge of his official duties. It is not the official duty of the public servant to fabricate the false records and misappropriate the public funds, etc. in furtherance of or in the discharge of his official duties. The official capacity only enables him to fabricate the record or misappropriate the public fund, etc. It does not mean that it is integrally connected or inseparably interlinked with the crime committed in the CBI Vs. M/s. Castron Technologies Ltd. & Ors. (Judgement dated 06.10.2020) Page No. 378 of 389 course of the same transaction, as was believed by the learned Judge. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the High Court [Shambhoo Nath Mishra v. State of U.P., 1995 SCC OnLine All 492 : (1995) 32 ACC 775] as well as by the trial court on the question of sanction is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained.'
Delhi District Court Cites 194 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

J. Jayalalitha vs Her Excellency The Governor Of Tamil ... on 1 October, 1997

33. Mr. Natarajan, Senior Counsel also contended that in the light of the later pronouncement of the Apex Court in Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P. & Ors., , the sanction may not even be necessary on the facts of the case. However, it is not the definite stand of the respondents that sanction may not be required at all on the facts of the case. Further, this question cannot be gone into at this stage.
Madras High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Hasib Ansari S/O Late Fakhruddin Ansari vs State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 27 September, 2021

In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 2102 (Shambhoo Nath Misra vs. State of U.P. and others), the complaint was dismissed on account of absence of sanction and the said order of the Magistrate dismissing the complaint was upheld by the High Court and was the subject-matter of consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document

Om Prakash Yadav vs Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay on 13 December, 2024

17. Likewise, in Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P. [(1997) 5 SCC 326 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 676 : AIR 1997 SC 2102] , the Court dealt with the subject in the following manner : (SCC p. 328, para 5) “5. The question is when the public servant is alleged to have committed the offence of fabrication of record or misappropriation of public fund, etc. can he be said to have acted in discharge of his official duties? It is not the official duty of the public servant to fabricate the false record and misappropriate the public funds, etc. in furtherance of or in the discharge of his official duties. The official capacity only enables him to fabricate the record or misappropriate the public fund, etc. It does not mean that it is integrally connected or inseparably interlinked with the crime committed in the course of same transaction, as was believed by the learned Judge. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the High Court as well as by the trial court on the question of sanction is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 76 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next