Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.73 seconds)The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
State Of H.P vs Nishant Sareen on 9 December, 2010
3. Severely fulminating the impugned order, Sri O.Manohar
Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner would argue that when once the
Government who is the competent authority, thrice refused the
sanction, the then Presiding Officer of the trial Court, have had no
jurisdiction to direct the Government to reconsider its opinion and
accord sanction on the ground that the material collected and placed
before him by the Investigating Agency disclosed case against the
petitioner/accused. Such an order dated 08.12.2014 passed by the
then learned Judge, besides usurping jurisdiction not vested in him, is
also devoid of principles of natural justice since the petitioner/accused
was not put to prior notice before passing the said order. Hence, his
successor in office ought not to have dismissed the discharge
5
application on the sole ground that his predecessor has already opined
that there was material in the case and took cognizance and hence, he
cannot take different stand by reviewing the earlier order. Learned
counsel would strenuously argue that finding prima facie material to
take cognizance by the Court is altogether different from examining
the legality and validity of sanction issued by a competent authority.
Even if there is sufficient material to take cognizance, he would point
out, if the sanction order, which is sine qua non for taking cognizance,
suffers from severe legal infirmities, the Court can refuse to take
cognizance or if had already taken cognizance, can discharge the
accused. Since the accused prayed in Crl.M.P.No.945 of 2017 to
discharge him on the ground that sanction was accorded without there
being fresh material on record, the trial Court ought to have examined
the said issue not being influenced by its earlier taking cognizance of
the case. He placed reliance on State of Himachal Pradesh v.
Nishant Sareen1 and K.Madhu Murthy v. National Institute of
Technology, Warangal, Andhra Pradesh2 to argue that the
sanctioning authority though has power to review its earlier decision
to refuse sanction, shall not accord sanction without there being fresh
material warranting sanction.