Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 197 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 1 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 3 September, 1997
7. Validity of an order of sanction would depend upon
application of mind on the part of the authority
concerned and the material placed before it. All such
material facts and material evidence must be considered
by it. The sanctioning authority must apply its mind on
such material facts and evidence collected during the
investigation. Even such application of mind does not
appear from the order of sanction, extrinsic evidence
may be placed before the court in that behalf. While
granting sanction, the authority cannot take into
consideration an irrelevant fact nor can it pass an order
on extraneous consideration not germane for passing a
statutory order. It is also well settled that the superior
courts cannot direct the sanctioning authority either to
grant sanction or not to do so. The source of power of
an authority passing an order of sanction must also be
considered. (See Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State
of Gujarat [(1997) 7 SCC 622 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1784 :
K. Srinivasulu Setty vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By ... on 6 September, 1991
In Sri K. Srinivasulu (supra), a Division Bench of this Court had
held that the order of sanction must, ex facie, disclose that the sanctioning
authority had considered the evidence and other materials placed before it.
While the order of sanction need not contain detailed reasons, basic facts
that constitute the offence must be apparent on the order. In the said case,
G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 15.01.2009 did not even state that sanction was being
refused and all that the G.O. recorded is that the Government had decided
to initiate a departmental enquiry against the 4th respondent. The
contention advanced on behalf of the State that as Central Government had
directed disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against the officer, it must
be inferred that the Government had rejected the request of the Anti-
Corruption Bureau for grant of sanction, was repelled by holding that there
must be a clear recital in the order that sanction for prosecution under the
Act of 1988 is being accorded or refused. It was also held that in the
13 HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.203 of 2020
absence of any explicit statement of refusal, the impugned order suffered
from non-application of mind.
Romesh Lal Jain vs Naginder Singh Rana & Ors on 28 October, 2005
In Romesh Lal Jain v. Naginder Singh Rana and others,
reported in (2006) 1 SCC 294, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
as follows:
State(Anti Corruption Branch)Delhi & ... vs Dr. R.C. Anand & Anr on 15 April, 2004
10 HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.203 of 2020
1997 SCC (Cri) 1120] .) The authority concerned cannot
also pass an order of sanction subject to ratification of a
higher authority. [See State v. Dr. R.C. Anand [(2004) 4
SCC 615 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1380] .]"
K. Raja Rao vs A.P. Industrial Development ... on 4 January, 2013
In K. Rama Krishna Raju (supra), a learned single Judge of this
Court had observed that according or refusing to accord sanction for
prosecution is not an empty formality and requires application of mind. In
that case, it was held that the mere fact that the matter had been referred to
the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings does not, by itself, necessitate the
inference that the competent authority had, impliedly, refused to accord
sanction for prosecuting the petitioner before the competent Criminal Court
and that in the absence of any order being passed earlier refusing to accord
sanction for prosecution, it cannot be said that the order according sanction
under the impugned G.O., amounted to a review.