Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)Section 240 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 242 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Punjab & Anr vs Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti on 31 July, 2009
8. Sri C.H.Jadhav, learned senior counsel for respondent
(accused), relying on decisions of the Supreme Court,
reported in (2000) 9 SCC 53 (in the case of Gopikant
Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar & others), (2009) 17 SCC 92
(in the case of State of Punjab & another Vs. Mohammed
Iqbal Bhatti) and (2010) 14 SCC 527 (in the case of State of
Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nishant Sareen) would submit that
Sanctioning Authority having refused to accord sanction
8
cannot accord fresh sanction without there being any fresh
material.
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
State Of H.P vs Nishant Sareen on 9 December, 2010
8. Sri C.H.Jadhav, learned senior counsel for respondent
(accused), relying on decisions of the Supreme Court,
reported in (2000) 9 SCC 53 (in the case of Gopikant
Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar & others), (2009) 17 SCC 92
(in the case of State of Punjab & another Vs. Mohammed
Iqbal Bhatti) and (2010) 14 SCC 527 (in the case of State of
Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nishant Sareen) would submit that
Sanctioning Authority having refused to accord sanction
8
cannot accord fresh sanction without there being any fresh
material.
State Of M.P vs Virendra Kumar Tripathi on 27 April, 2009
10. The learned counsel for Lokayukta police, relying on
the judgment of Supreme Court, reported in (2010) 2 SCC
(Cri) 667 (in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Virender Kumar Tripathi) would submit that under section
19(3)(a) of the Act, no finding, sentence or order passed by a
Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in
appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of absence of,
or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required
under sub-section(1), unless in the opinion of that court, a
failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
B Shivarudraswamy vs State By Lokayukta Police on 9 April, 2013
9. The learned senior counsel for respondent, relying on
judgment of this court, reported in 2008(3) AIR Kar.R.83 (in
the case of B.Shivarudraswamy Vs. State) would submit that
subsequent order granting sanction is void ab initio. The
accused has to be discharged.
Gopikant Choudhary & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 9 April, 2010
8. Sri C.H.Jadhav, learned senior counsel for respondent
(accused), relying on decisions of the Supreme Court,
reported in (2000) 9 SCC 53 (in the case of Gopikant
Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar & others), (2009) 17 SCC 92
(in the case of State of Punjab & another Vs. Mohammed
Iqbal Bhatti) and (2010) 14 SCC 527 (in the case of State of
Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nishant Sareen) would submit that
Sanctioning Authority having refused to accord sanction
8
cannot accord fresh sanction without there being any fresh
material.
1