Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.28 seconds)
Birendra Nath Mukherjee vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 22 August, 1972 cites

Ajit Kumar Palit vs State Of West Bengal on 7 November, 1962

8. I however propose to deal with the questions involved on merits. The first bone of contention is whether the sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P. C. is pre-requisite for prosecution before the Magistrate at Cooch Behar of public servant like the petitioner in the facts of the case. Mr. Mukherjee has contended that it is a necessary and essential condition for taking cognizance by a Court when the public servant has been accused of offence under Section 409/109 while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duly. Reliance was placed on the decision in Ajit Kumar Palit v. State of West Bengal, in which the following observation was approved "......... talcing cognizance ............ occurs as soon as Magistrate, as such, applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence". It was held "Where the statute prescribes the materials on which alone the judicial mind shall operate before arty step is taken obviously statutory requirement must be fulfilled".
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 94 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Matajog Dobey vs H. C. Bhari(With Connected Appeal) on 31 October, 1955

In Matajog Dobey's case, (supra), the question for consideration was whether the need for sanction is to be considered as soon as the complaint is lodged and on the allegation contained. It was held "The question may arise at any stage of proceedings. The complaint may not disclose that the act constituting the offence was done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty; but facts subsequently coming to light on a police or judicial enquiry op even in the course of the prosecution evidence at the trial, may establish the necessity for sanction. Whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage. The necessity may reveal itself in the course of the progress of the case."
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 666 - Full Document

Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava vs N. P. Misra on 20 April, 1970

In Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava v. N. P. Mishra, , the Court observed that the section should not be construed too narrowly or too widely and it was laid down that "The narrow and pedantic construction may render it otiose for it is not part of an official duty -- and never can be - to commit an offence. In our view it is not the "duty" which requires examination so much as the "act" because the official act can be performed both in discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 74 - I D Dua - Full Document

Sakuntala Bai vs Venkatakrishna Reddi, The Customs ... on 6 February, 1952

9. Mr. Basak has disputed the above contention and submitted that the sanction may not be necessary in the facts of the case and further such question cannot be raised at this stage or in this forum. The alleged commission of offence is in respect of library funds not connected with discharge of official duty by the petitioner. Sanction accordingly is not necessary as such offence was not committed by the public servant in discharge of his official duty but as ex-officio officer of the library. Alternatively this alleged commission is a disputed question of fact to be decided in appropriate forum when charge, if at all, is framed for commission of the offence in discharge of official duty. The applications are accordingly premature as the petitioner can have no grievance on this ground till it is decided on investigation that the public servant is protected under Section 197. Such questions involved are mixed question of law and fact and have to be decided after investigation as was held in Sakuntala Bai v. Venkatakrishna Reddi, .
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1