Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
State Of Goa vs Babu Thomas on 29 September, 2005
9) There cannot be any dispute as to the settled principle of law that
sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Act, 1988 is to be
given by the competent authority. The principles laid down in the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh (Supra), State of Goa Vs. Babu Thomas (Supra), Dilawar
6
Singh Vs. Parvinder Singh @ Iqbal Singh & Anr. (Supra), Mansukhlal
Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat (Supra), State of Karnatake Vs.
Ameerjan (Supra) and Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
(Supra), regarding a valid sanction is consistent. The Hon'ble Apex
Court has taken a consistent view to the fact that the sanctioning
authority is to apply its mind before according sanction to prosecute
and that reference to the facts on which the prosecution is based, must
appear on the face of the sanction. This principle of law is well
reasoned because until and unless the sanctioning authority is
provided with facts and circumstances of the entire matter on which
the prosecution is based, the sanctioning authority will not be in a
position to apply its mind and consider whether the sanction for
prosecution was required or not. Any departure from this settled
principle of law renders a sanction to prosecute invalid and entire
proceeding basing on that sanction to prosecute obviously would
become illegal and invalid. In the instant case, the Ext. 8, I reiterate,
was neither given by a competent authority nor it disclosed that facts
on which it was based, placed before the authority for consideration. It
does not appear on the face of Ext. 8 that materials were placed before
the sanctioning authority and the sanctioning authority considered it.
There is also no extraneous evidence that material facts constituting
the offence were place before the sanctioning authority. Such being the
facts and circumstances, I must say that the sanction for prosecution
7
of the appellant was not valid in the eye of law and has rendered the
entire proceeding invalid. On that count only, the appeal succeeds.
Dilawar Singh vs Parvinder Singh @ Iqbal Singh & Anr on 8 November, 2005
9) There cannot be any dispute as to the settled principle of law that
sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Act, 1988 is to be
given by the competent authority. The principles laid down in the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh (Supra), State of Goa Vs. Babu Thomas (Supra), Dilawar
6
Singh Vs. Parvinder Singh @ Iqbal Singh & Anr. (Supra), Mansukhlal
Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat (Supra), State of Karnatake Vs.
Ameerjan (Supra) and Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
(Supra), regarding a valid sanction is consistent. The Hon'ble Apex
Court has taken a consistent view to the fact that the sanctioning
authority is to apply its mind before according sanction to prosecute
and that reference to the facts on which the prosecution is based, must
appear on the face of the sanction. This principle of law is well
reasoned because until and unless the sanctioning authority is
provided with facts and circumstances of the entire matter on which
the prosecution is based, the sanctioning authority will not be in a
position to apply its mind and consider whether the sanction for
prosecution was required or not. Any departure from this settled
principle of law renders a sanction to prosecute invalid and entire
proceeding basing on that sanction to prosecute obviously would
become illegal and invalid. In the instant case, the Ext. 8, I reiterate,
was neither given by a competent authority nor it disclosed that facts
on which it was based, placed before the authority for consideration. It
does not appear on the face of Ext. 8 that materials were placed before
the sanctioning authority and the sanctioning authority considered it.
There is also no extraneous evidence that material facts constituting
the offence were place before the sanctioning authority. Such being the
facts and circumstances, I must say that the sanction for prosecution
7
of the appellant was not valid in the eye of law and has rendered the
entire proceeding invalid. On that count only, the appeal succeeds.
Section 19 in The Factories Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
1