Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.27 seconds)Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 11 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Mohd. Iqbal, Ahmad vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 January, 1979
22. The Honourable Apex in the case of Mohd.Iqbal
Ahmad vs. State of Andhra Pradesh4 has held that
what the Court has to see is whether or not the
sanctioning authority at the time of giving the sanction
was aware of the facts constituting the offence and
applied its mind for the same and any subsequent fact
coming into existence after the resolution had been
4 1979 AIR 677
.....17/-
C.B.I vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal on 31 October, 2013
23. The Honourable Apex Court, in another decision,
in the case of CBI vs. Ashok Kumar Agrawal 5, has
held that sanction lifts the bar for prosecution and,
therefore, it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn
and sacrosanct act which affords protection to the
government servant against frivolous prosecution. There
is an obligation on the sanctioning authority to discharge
its duty to give or withhold sanction only after having full
knowledge of the material facts of the case. The
prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the
sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure
statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos,
5 2014 Cri.L.J.930
.....18/-
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Ameerjan .P on 21 January, 2021
24. The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of State
of Karnataka vs. Ameerjan6, held that it is true that an
order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic
manner. But, it is also well settled that the purpose for
which an order of sanction is required to be passed
should always be borne in mind. Ordinarily, the
sanctioning authority is the best person to judge as to
whether the public servant concerned should receive the
protection under the Act by refusing to accord sanction
for his prosecution or not. For the aforementioned
purpose, indisputably, application of mind on the part of
the sanctioning authority is imperative. The order
granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that
there had been proper application of mind on the part of
the sanctioning authority.
Nanjappa vs State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2015
33. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of
Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka7 dealt with
intricacies of Section 19(1) as also Section 19(3) and
19(4) of the P.C. Act as to at what stage the question of
validity of sanction accorded under Section 19(1) of the
P.C. Act could be raised, and what are the powers of the
court in appeal, confirmation or revision under sub-
section (3) of Section 19 of the P.C. Act. It is observed
that the legal position regarding the importance of
sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act is thus much too clear to admit equivocation. The
statute forbids taking of cognizance by the court against
a public servant except with the previous sanction of an
authority competent to grant such sanction in terms of
clauses (a), (b) and (c) to Section 19(1). The question
regarding validity of such sanction can be raised at any
stage of the proceedings. The competence of the court
7 ((2015) 14 SCC 186
.....26/-