Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.27 seconds)The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
S. A. Venkataraman vs The State(And Connected Appeal) on 3 December, 1957
In
S.A.Venkataraman v. The State , the question that fell for consideration was
with regard to necessity for a sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947, before a Court would take cognizance of offence under
Section 151 of the IPC or Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act or
both alleged to have been committed by a person who at the time the Court
was asked to take cognizance was not a public servant but was so at the
time of the commission of the offence. On facts, it was found that the
appellants ceased to be public servants at the time the Court took
cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed by them as
public servants and hence, it was accordingly held that the provision of
Section 6 of the Act did not apply and the prosecution against them was not
vitiated by the lack of previous sanction by a competent authority.
7.2 In the case on hand, there is no need to dilate on this alternative
contention, for the following reasons: The petitioner-A1, who is a public
servant of the State of Andhra Pradesh, was alleged to have misused or
abused the Office which he held at that time. However, subsequently and
before the sanction is accorded by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for his
prosecution, he was tentatively allotted to the State of Telangana. Thus, his
allotment is not final. In the considered view of this Court, he might again
be allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh or his tentative allotment to the
State of Telangana might be approved while finalising final allotments by the
two States. These contingencies are not ruled out. Therefore, till his
allotment is made final, he holds a lien on his post in the State of Andhra
Pradesh and his post in the State of Andhra Pradesh, on his tentative
allotment to the State of Telangana, cannot be filled up either by direct
recruitment or by promotion or by transfer, as the case may be, till his
allotment to the State of Telangana attains finality. Since the allotment of
the petitioner-A1 in the State of Telangana is only tentative and not final,
there is no need to consider the alternative contention of the learned
Standing Counsel, in the considered view of this Court.