Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.46 seconds)Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 3 September, 1997
16. In view of aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the grant of sanction for prosecution of applicant is suffering from any material illegality or perversity or non-application of mind. The sanction order in question fulfils the criteria and guidelines laid down in cases of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra) and Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is apparent from the perusal of sanction order that the sanctioning authority has considered the material pertaining to the case and applied its mind and was satisfied that a case for prosecution of applicant- Vinay Kumar Singh, the then Office Assistant, Grade-II / In-charge of godown, under Sections 409, 419, 420 IPC and Section 13(2) P. C. Act and for violation of Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains Procurement and Regulation of Trade Order, 1982, is made out and accordingly, the sanction was granted.
C.B.I vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal on 31 October, 2013
16. In view of aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the grant of sanction for prosecution of applicant is suffering from any material illegality or perversity or non-application of mind. The sanction order in question fulfils the criteria and guidelines laid down in cases of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra) and Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is apparent from the perusal of sanction order that the sanctioning authority has considered the material pertaining to the case and applied its mind and was satisfied that a case for prosecution of applicant- Vinay Kumar Singh, the then Office Assistant, Grade-II / In-charge of godown, under Sections 409, 419, 420 IPC and Section 13(2) P. C. Act and for violation of Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains Procurement and Regulation of Trade Order, 1982, is made out and accordingly, the sanction was granted.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 240 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
State Of Maharashtra Tr.C.B.I vs Mahesh G.Jain on 28 May, 2013
15. Consideration of the material implies application of mind. Therefore, the order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same. If the sanction order on its face indicates that all relevant material i.e. FIR, disclosure statements, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and other materials on record were placed before the sanctioning authority and if it is further discernible from the recital of the sanction order that the sanctioning authority perused all the material, an inference may be drawn that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law. This becomes necessary in case the court is to examine the validity of the order of sanction inter-alia on the ground that the order suffers from the vice of total non-application of mind. (Vide: Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. King, AlR 1949 PC 82; Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 124; Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P., AIR 1979 SC 677; State through Anti- Corruption Bureau, Govt. of Maharashtra v. Krishanchand Khushalchand Jagtiani, AIR 1996 SC 1910; State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti, (2009) 17 SCC 92; Satyavir Singh Rathi, ACP v. State, AIR 2011 SC 1748; and State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh G. Jain, (2013) 8 SCC 119)."