Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs State (Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi) on 18 September, 2009
11. Turning to the case in hand I find that the
offence alleged against accused was committed when he
was discharging his duties as a Sub Inspector therefore it
was necessary for the prosecution to obtain sanction for
his prosecution. Admittedly no sanction for prosecution
was applied or obtained. Rather the police filed a final
report/cancellation report as per provisions of Section 169
Cr. P.C. as the evidence against the accused was deficient.
The proceedings of Ld. M.M. shows that complainant was
even not traceable. The principles of law laid down in
cases Rakesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (supra),
Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh v. Jammal Patel (supra), S.K.
Zutshi & Another v. Bimal Debnath & Anr., (supra),
Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das & Anr., (supra), and
provisions of section 140 of D.P. Act and section 197 of
Cr.P.C. provide benefit/protection to the accused. Ld. M.M.
did not consider this aspect in the impugned order. In
the absence of sanction for prosecution u/s 197 of the
Code, it was not just fair and legal for Ld. M.M. to take
cognizance against the accused/revisionist. Therefore, the
impugned order cannot be termed as an order beyond any
inaccuracy, incorrectness or illegality or impropriety.
Therefore, impugned order is set aside. Accordingly, the
C.R. No.164/11 Arun Chauhan vs. State Page 9 of 10
revision petition is allowed.
Sankaran Moitra vs Smt. Sadhna Das & Anr on 24 March, 2006
"9. The first and foremost question that arises before this
Court is whether the petitioner was acting in his official
capacity while the alleged offence was committed by him?
In this case admittedly, petitioner was the driver of the
crane and had gone to the spot of the incident to remove
the vehicle bearing No.DL IV-6092 which was illegally
parked on the public road. The presence of the petitioner
at the spot was on account of his official duty.***
Applying the principles laid down in the case of Sankaran
Moitra (Supra) the act of the petitioner can be said to be
done in pursuance of his official capacity and while
performing duty as a traffic constable. Thus
concomitantly, a sanction under section 140 of the Delhi
Police Act was mandatory so as to institute proceedings
against the petitioner. To say that the provisions of
C.R. No.164/11 Arun Chauhan vs. State Page 6 of 10
section 140 of the Delhi Police Act would not apply in the
case of the petitioner as the act committed by him was not
part of his duty, would be incorrect.
Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh & Ors vs Jammal Patel & Ors on 12 May, 2001
11. Turning to the case in hand I find that the
offence alleged against accused was committed when he
was discharging his duties as a Sub Inspector therefore it
was necessary for the prosecution to obtain sanction for
his prosecution. Admittedly no sanction for prosecution
was applied or obtained. Rather the police filed a final
report/cancellation report as per provisions of Section 169
Cr. P.C. as the evidence against the accused was deficient.
The proceedings of Ld. M.M. shows that complainant was
even not traceable. The principles of law laid down in
cases Rakesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (supra),
Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh v. Jammal Patel (supra), S.K.
Zutshi & Another v. Bimal Debnath & Anr., (supra),
Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das & Anr., (supra), and
provisions of section 140 of D.P. Act and section 197 of
Cr.P.C. provide benefit/protection to the accused. Ld. M.M.
did not consider this aspect in the impugned order. In
the absence of sanction for prosecution u/s 197 of the
Code, it was not just fair and legal for Ld. M.M. to take
cognizance against the accused/revisionist. Therefore, the
impugned order cannot be termed as an order beyond any
inaccuracy, incorrectness or illegality or impropriety.
Therefore, impugned order is set aside. Accordingly, the
C.R. No.164/11 Arun Chauhan vs. State Page 9 of 10
revision petition is allowed.
Shri S.K. Zutshi & Another vs Shri Bimal Debnath & Anr on 10 August, 2004
11. Turning to the case in hand I find that the
offence alleged against accused was committed when he
was discharging his duties as a Sub Inspector therefore it
was necessary for the prosecution to obtain sanction for
his prosecution. Admittedly no sanction for prosecution
was applied or obtained. Rather the police filed a final
report/cancellation report as per provisions of Section 169
Cr. P.C. as the evidence against the accused was deficient.
The proceedings of Ld. M.M. shows that complainant was
even not traceable. The principles of law laid down in
cases Rakesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (supra),
Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh v. Jammal Patel (supra), S.K.
Zutshi & Another v. Bimal Debnath & Anr., (supra),
Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das & Anr., (supra), and
provisions of section 140 of D.P. Act and section 197 of
Cr.P.C. provide benefit/protection to the accused. Ld. M.M.
did not consider this aspect in the impugned order. In
the absence of sanction for prosecution u/s 197 of the
Code, it was not just fair and legal for Ld. M.M. to take
cognizance against the accused/revisionist. Therefore, the
impugned order cannot be termed as an order beyond any
inaccuracy, incorrectness or illegality or impropriety.
Therefore, impugned order is set aside. Accordingly, the
C.R. No.164/11 Arun Chauhan vs. State Page 9 of 10
revision petition is allowed.
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 197 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Manjula Sinha vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 11 July, 2007
It has
been held by the Apex Court in the case of Manjula Sinha
v. State of UP & Ors., 2007 [3] JCC 2054, that if the Court
comes to the conclusion that continuance of proceedings
would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and
quashing all the proceedings would serve the ends of
justice, the proceedings should not be continued.