Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.55 seconds)Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Jaswant Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 20 October, 2021
14. The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of Jaswant Singh
vs. State of Punjab supra, observed that sanction under the said
Act is not intended to be nor is an automatic formality and it is
essential that the provisions in regard to sanction should be
observed with complete strictness.
State Of M.P vs Harishankar Bhagwan Pd. Tripathi on 13 August, 2010
15. The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Harishankar Bhagwan Prasad Tripathi supra, had
considered requirements of valid sanction and held that while
granting sanction, officer concerned is not required to indicate that
he has personally scrutinized file and had arrived at satisfaction for
granting sanction. The narration of events granting sanction for
prosecution clearly indicates the case and the reason for grant of
such sanction.
N. Vijayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 February, 2021
34. The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of N.Vijaykumar
vs. State of Tamil Nadu, as cited by learned counsel for the
accused, dealt with expression "erroneous" which means "wrong"
and "incorrect" and observed that It will be necessary for us to
emphasise that a possible view denotes an opinion which can exist
or be formed irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of such
an opinion. The correctness or otherwise of any conclusion
reached by a court has to be tested on the basis of what the
superior judicial authority perceives to be the correct conclusion. A
possible view, on the other hand, denotes a conclusion which can
reasonably be arrived at regardless of the fact where it is agreed
upon or not by the higher court. The fundamental distinction
between the two situations have to be kept in mind.
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 16 March, 2017
17. The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of Central Bureau
of Investigation vs. State of Haryana supra, also dealt with the
issue of valid sanction.
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 Pradesh6 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 passed is wholly irrelevant.
6 1979 AIR 677
.....12/-
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 Agrawal7 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,
draft charge sheet and all other relevant material. It has been
further held by the Honourable Apex Court that the record so sent
should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt
the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the
7 2014 Cri.L.J.930
.....13/-
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Ameerjan .P on 21 January, 2021
24. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of State of
Karnataka vs. Ameerjan8, 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
8 (2007)11 SCC 273
.....14/-