Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.50 seconds)Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka vs The King on 13 January, 1948
In Gokulchand Dwarkadas v. The King, 1948 ALL. L.J. 170, the Privy Council had occasion to consider this matter. Their Lordships held that the sanction to prosecute was an important matter; that it constituted a condition precedent to the institution of the prosecution and that where there was nothing on the face of the sanction or other extraneous evidence to indicate that the sanctioning authority knew the facts alleged to constitute the offence, the sanction was invalid. In the case before their Lordships the sanctioning authority had before it the name of the accused and the clause under which he was sought to be prosecuted. It had no other facts before it when it granted the sanction to prosecute. Their Lordships held that the sanction was invalid. This case does not, in my opinion, help the appellant because in the present case something more than merely the name of the accused and the section of the Penal Code under which he was to be prosecuted, was brought to the notice of the District Magistrate.
Secretary Of State vs Karim Bux on 22 September, 1938
In State v. Karim Bux, 1950 ALL. L.J. 383, I had a case before me in which there was no specific order sanctioning the prosecution of the applicant. The charge sheet was sent to the S. P. (who happened to be also the officer who could have accorded the necessary sanction for the prosecution of the accused). The S. P. merely as an officer responsible for the prosecution in the ordinary way, wrote down on the charge sheet which was submitted to him that "it may be sent to the proper Court through the Chief Inspector." I held that this order could not be construed as sanction to prosecute because it did not appear that the S. P. had applied his mind to the question whether he should sanction the prosecution of the accused or not, and that he had merely forwarded the charge sheet to the Court in the normal manner as any head of the police would do in ordinary cases that were investigated and desired to be sent to the Court for trial. I further observed that:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Pearey Lal vs Rex on 27 February, 1950
10. It is not necessary that full details of the prosecution case be mentioned in the charge sheet or brought to the notice of the sanctioning authority. It is enough if the essential facts on which the prosecution is based are stated. The present case is practically on all fours with the case of Pearey Lal v. Rex, A. I.R. 1950 ALL. 507 where the facts mentioned in the police charge sheet were held to be sufficient for according sanction.
1