TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: No Prior Sanction Needed for Prosecuting Offences under Section 12</h1> <h3>STATE Versus PARMESHWARAN SUBRAMANI</h3> The Supreme Court clarified that previous sanction is not required to prosecute offences under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The ... Prosecution of public servant - Whether any previous sanction as such is necessary for taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act? Issues Involved:1. Necessity of previous sanction to prosecute a public servant under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. Interpretation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Necessity of Previous Sanction to Prosecute a Public Servant under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:The case revolves around whether previous sanction is required to prosecute a public servant for an offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court of Bombay at Goa affirmed the Special Judge's conclusion that such sanction was necessary. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that Section 12 does not require previous sanction for prosecution.2. Interpretation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:The appellant contended that Section 19 of the Act explicitly mentions the need for previous sanction for offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15, but not for Section 12. The respondents argued that since Section 12 involves abetment of offences under Sections 7 or 11, the requirement for sanction should extend to Section 12 as well.Detailed Analysis:Factual Matrix:The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) initiated a preliminary enquiry against the respondent, a Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, for allegedly causing a loss of Rs. 1.04 crores to the department by purchasing flats at an exorbitant price. Subsequently, an Inspector of Central Excise attempted to bribe the CBI Inspector to close the case. A trap was laid, and the respondent was caught offering the bribe.Lower Courts' Decisions:The Special Judge and the High Court concluded that previous sanction was necessary to prosecute the respondents under Section 12, interpreting that Section 12 is not independent of Sections 7 or 11, and thus, sanction was required.Supreme Court's Analysis:The Supreme Court analyzed Sections 12 and 19 of the Act. Section 12 deals with punishment for abetment of offences under Sections 7 or 11, while Section 19 specifies that previous sanction is necessary only for offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15. The Court emphasized that Section 12 is a distinct offence, and the abetment of an offence under Sections 7 or 11 does not require the actual commission of the offence.Legal Principles:The Court reiterated that legislative intent must be derived from the clear language of the statute. It is not the role of the judiciary to add or read into the statute provisions that the legislature has consciously omitted. The Court cited precedents emphasizing that courts should not rewrite statutes under the guise of interpretation.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in interpreting Section 19 to include Section 12 within its ambit. The legislature's omission of Section 12 from the requirement of previous sanction was intentional and clear. Therefore, no previous sanction is required for prosecuting offences under Section 12 of the Act.Judgment:The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, clarifying that previous sanction is not necessary for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
