Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.28 seconds)
S.Ganapathi vs State Represented By on 11 April, 2018 cites

Prof. N.K.Ganguly vs Cbi New Delhi on 19 November, 2015

13.The first point to be considered is whether sanction is necessary under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. as a petitioner is an employee of Indian Overseas Bank. According to Section 197 of Cr.P.C., sanction is required to prosecute the Public Servant. So far as the case of the Petitioner is concerned, he is working as the Asst. Manager in the Indian Overseas Bank and it comes within the purview of Public Sector Bank. Further, while working as employee, he has allegedly undertaken the work of performing as Administrative officer in the Multi Specialty Hospital at Pallikaranai. But his original service is with the bank. Further, the transaction alleged by the respondent are relating to Bank transaction and he has alleged to have misused the power as an employee of the Indian Overseas Bank, therefore, sanction is very much required for prosecuting the petitioner as per Section 197 of Cr.P.C. Further, the judgment relied on by the 2nd respondent in 2016 (2) SCC 143 (N.K. Ganguly Vs CBI), New Delhi Speaks about the Section 197 and about obtaining sanction for prosecuting the public servant. Infact the said judgment supports the case of the petitioner, wherein at paragraph No. 35 it reads as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 143 - V G Gowda - Full Document

S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer vs Videocon International Ltd. & Ors on 25 January, 2008

18. In so far the 3rd issue that while filing final report the 1st respondent had stated that the petitioner is committed offence under Section 420, 408, 465 and 467 IPC and given statement to that effect. But the learned Magistrate while passing the cognizance order based on the final report on 11.01.2016 had taken the case on file as Section 420, 408, 477, 465 and 467 IPC in which Section 477 has been introduced in the charge sheet which have no averments in the final report. Therefore, this Court feels that the learned Magistrate had exceeded his power and there was lack of application of judicial mind by the Learned Magistrate and cognizance of the charge sheet was not taken in the manner known to Law. Taking valid cognizance of the offence is the condition precedent for valid trial. But in this case the cognizance order was passed mechanically without application of judicial mind on the relevant material facts. Since the cognisance is invalid the subsequent proceedings are also invalid (2008) 2 SCC 492 (S.K.Sinha, Chief Enforcement Vs Videocon International Ltd. & Ors.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 371 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1   2 3 Next