Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013
"12. That the complainant gave a complaint to the police on 13.07.2021
through speed post, through email as well as by hand referring the case law
Lalit Kumar (Supra) but the police was not even interested to receive the
complaint which was sent by hand. The police inspite of best knowledge
that the losses have been caused to the General Public as well as
Government but no action is being taken, hence this complaint is filed."
Anil Kumar & Ors vs M.K Aiyappa & Anr on 1 October, 2013
17. Though, during the course of arguments, another contention was made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that for the purpose of proceeding under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in respect of an offence under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, prior sanction in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act is required and cited a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in Anil Kumar vs. M.K. Aiyappa (2013)10 SCC 705, to support his
contention but this Court need not delve into the said issue as the impugned
order otherwise also cannot sustain, as has already been discussed above in
preceding paragraphs and also since the issue as decided in Anil Kumar's
case (supra) has already been referred to a larger Bench of Hon'ble Apex
Court in a subsequent case i.e in Manju Surana Versus Sunil Arora and
others, (2018) 5 SCC 557.
Section 190 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 202 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Ramdev Food Products Private Limited vs State Of Gujarat on 16 March, 2015
In any case, any such direction for lodging FIR can only be issued
upon application of mind and not mechanically, as has been held in
Ramdev's case (supra).
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
1