Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.46 seconds)
Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Kumar Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I. Anti ... on 18 June, 2010 cites

P K Pradhan vs The State Of Sikkim Represented By The on 24 July, 2001

It is not in dispute that there is no sanction of prosecution under the Indian Penal Code, but Mr.Bireshwar Nath as well as learned Government Advocate argued that the sanction accorded under the Prevention of Corruption Act is sufficient to try the petitioner under the Indian Penal Code also as the offence committed by the petitioner are contemporary to the offences committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act. They further pointed out that the offence has been committed by the petitioner by doing the act which is not attributable to the official duty, therefore, no sanction is required, as has been laid down in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of P.K.Pradhan versus State of Sikkim represented by the Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) of 1234 and in the case of M.Gopalakrishnan v. State by Addl.S.P.CBI, B.S.& F.C, Bangalore, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2015, whereas the charge sheet submitted against the petitioner shows that the offence committed by the petitioner has been found to have been committed during the course of duty. The relevant portion of the charge sheet is reproduced hereunder:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 224 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

M. Gopalakrishnan vs State By Addl. S.P. Cbi, Bs&Fc Bangalore on 11 February, 2009

It is not in dispute that there is no sanction of prosecution under the Indian Penal Code, but Mr.Bireshwar Nath as well as learned Government Advocate argued that the sanction accorded under the Prevention of Corruption Act is sufficient to try the petitioner under the Indian Penal Code also as the offence committed by the petitioner are contemporary to the offences committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act. They further pointed out that the offence has been committed by the petitioner by doing the act which is not attributable to the official duty, therefore, no sanction is required, as has been laid down in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of P.K.Pradhan versus State of Sikkim represented by the Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) of 1234 and in the case of M.Gopalakrishnan v. State by Addl.S.P.CBI, B.S.& F.C, Bangalore, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2015, whereas the charge sheet submitted against the petitioner shows that the offence committed by the petitioner has been found to have been committed during the course of duty. The relevant portion of the charge sheet is reproduced hereunder:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 6 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1