Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.29 seconds)H.H.B. Gill vs The King on 17 February, 1948
7. Exhibit P-5 states that sanction is accorded under Section 197 Criminal P. C. as well as Section 12 Prevention of Corruption Act. If as held in 'B.G. Lerotholi v. The King', AIR (37) 1950 P. C. 10, Section 197 does not apply, the order made thereunder does not affect the ordinary jurisdiction of the City Magistrate to commit the accused and this is obligatory as regards the offence under Section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act which, being punishable with, imprisonment of seven years, is triable exclusively by the Court of Session under Schedule II of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even otherwise the words in Section 347 of the Code enable him to exercise his powers to commit, at any stage of the proceedings, the accused to the Court of Session. In A I R (34) 1947 F C 9 it was observed that after the institution of proceedings -is sanctioned the subsequent course of the same is governed by the relevant provisions of the Code. There is no reason to hold that the sanction of Government for the initiation of the proceedings was defective or that the trial of the accused in the Court of Session was invalid.
Section 12 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Emperor vs Chaturbhuj Sahu on 8 September, 1910
In Vol. XVI Corpus Juris, page 673 it is stated that "A detective who is engaged in attempts to discover violations of the law is not an accomplice of one charged with such a violation." The question as to what is the test of a person being an accomplice is considered in 'Emperor v. Chaturbhuj Sahu', 38 Cal 96 at p 105 in detail and answered thus:
Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka vs The King on 13 January, 1948
5. The report of the District Magistrate referred to is Exhibit P-25, dated 14-10-1948, which is next to the date of the occurrence. Relying on 'Gokulchand Dwarkadas v. The King', AIR (35) 1948 P C 82 which states "that the facts constituting the offence charged should be shown on the face of the sanction or the prosecution must prove by extraneous evidence that these facts were placed before the sanctioning authority" it was urged that the facts are not set forth in Exhibit P. 5 and if Exhibit P. 25 is deemed to have furnished the facts required, the sanction is not valid as Exhibit P. 23 contains admission of guilt by accused which is in-admissible. I do not think that the mention of the alleged admission will invalidate the sanction as its purpose was to inform the Government of what accused said at the time along with other facts for determining whether a prosecution is called for. The rules governing reception of evidence or those for recording confessions cannot apply as the statements are not sought to be used as either. It may be mentioned that Exhibit P. 25 was called for by the accused and the sanction is not based on the alleged admission of accused.