Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.65 seconds)Section 19 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
State Of Kerala vs M. M. Manikantan Nair on 25 April, 2001
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-State has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantan Nair 2001 Cri LJ 2346 (supra) and Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa 1998 Cri LJ 4003 (supra) and submitted that no separate sanction under Section 197 of the Code is required for the prosecution of a retired public servant under the P.C. Act. He submitted that even otherwise, taking of bribe cannot be considered and taken as a part of official duty, therefore, no sanction under Section 197 of the Code is required, even if that provision is held applicable in case of a retired public servant. Therefore, learned State counsel submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, passed by the learned Special Judge.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 122 in Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Amrik Singh vs The State Of Pepsu on 28 February, 1955
Regarding the offences under the IPC, it has been served that the Hon'ble Apex Court has already stated the correct legal position in Shreekantiah Ramayya Munnipalli v. State of Bombay and
Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu that it is not every offence committed by a public servant which requires sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code. It is not part of the duty of a public servant while discharging his official duty to enter into a criminal conspiracy or to indulge in a criminal misconduct. Thus, taking of the bribe cannot be said to be part of the official duty.
State Of H.P vs M.P.Gupta on 9 December, 2003
In State of H.P. v. M.P. Gupta 2003 (10) JT 32 : AIR 2004 SC 730 the Hon'ble Apex Court has again held that an accused facing prosecution for offences of corruption cannot claim any immunity on the ground of want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code, when he ceased to be a public servant on the date when the Court took cognizance of the offences. This protection has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the accused public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duties. If in doing his official duties, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant from the prosecution. Before sanction under Section 197 of the Code can be invoked, it must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty. It is not part of the duty of a public servant while discharging his official duty to commit any forgery or to take the bribe.