Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Jaswant Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 25 October, 1957
To borrow from the decision of the Privy Council in Gokulchand Dwarkadas v. The King AIR 1948 PC 82 at p. 84 : 1948-49 Cri LJ 261 at pp. 262-263, relied on by the Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh (supra), the sanction to prosecute is an important matter as it constitutes a condition precedent to the institution of the prosecution; but the authority is not bound to sanction prosecution merely because the material placed before it "discloses a prima facie case against the person sought to be prosecuted".
H. N. Rishbud And Inder Singh vs The State Of Delhi(And Connected ... on 14 December, 1954
8. We are not, as we cannot, be unmindful of the provisions of Section 465, Cri. P.C., 1973 whereunder, as it now stands, "no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on account of...any error or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion of the Court a failure of justice as in fact been occasioned thereby", But as we have already indicated, it is not a case of any error or irregularity in the sanctions, but a case where though the sanctions only authorise prosecutions for "failure to pay", the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted, not for failure to pay, but for payment beyond the time prescribed, for which there is no sanction at all. It is not so much a case of any error or irregularity in the sanction, but a case of want of any sanction for prosecution for the offence of delayed payment, thus affecting, according to the ratio in H. N. Rishbud (1955 Cri LJ 526) (SC) (supra), the competency and the jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance.
Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka vs The King on 13 January, 1948
Notwithstanding such a prima facie, or even a fool-proof case, the authorities "can refuse sanction on any ground which commends itself to them" and makes them think that a prosecution, notwithstanding discloser of an offence under the law, is nevertheless no longer expedient, Looked at from this point of view, as pointed out by the Privy Council in Gokulchand Dwarkadas (supra), "it is plain that the Government cannot adequately discharge the obligation of deciding whether to give or withhold sanction without the knowledge of the facts of the case". There is nothing in the sanctions or the complaints to show that the attention of the authority concerned was duly drawn to the fact that all the contributions and other charges payable were already fully paid and it is, therefore, anybody's guess as to whether the sanctioning authority would have still thought these prosecutions to be expedient and granted sanctions, if it could apply its mind to the facts of such payments being already made. All the dues having already been paid before the sanctions were granted for prosecutions for "failure to pay", and there being nothing to suggest that the sanctioning authority could advert to the facts of these payments already made, the sanctions, in our view, may be assailed as to have suffered from infirmity resulting from non-application of mind to pertinent and relevant facts.
Basdeo Agarwalla vs Emperor on 19 January, 1945
7. Where a sanction to prosecute is made a condition precedent to any prosecution, as in S. MAC of the Act, such a sanction puts in peril the liberty of the person sought to be prosecuted. As pointed by the Federal Court in Basdeo Agarwala v. Emperor AIR 1945 FC 16 at p. 18 : 1945-46 Cri LJ 510 at p. 512, such a sanction cannot be an automatic formality and the provisions relating thereto are to be observed with complete strictness.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 14 in The Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Mohd. Iqbal, Ahmad vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 January, 1979
To quote again from the Supreme Court in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad v. State of Andhra Pradesh , "it is well-settled that any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio".
1