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 upholds rejection of discharge application, clarifies consent not needed under Official Secrets Act.</h1> <h3>Rakesh Kumar Jain Versus State Through CBI</h3> The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the rejection of the petitioner's application for discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal ... Whether the order of the prosecution had not been passed by an appropriate authority and that the cognizance could not have been taken as according to him the complaint was barred by limitation? Held that:- We agree with the submissions made by Mr.Bahuguna that no sanction or consent is provided to be taken from the Government under Section 13(3) of the Act and the period spent in obtaining the orders for filing the complaint cannot be excluded under Explanation to Subsection (3) of Section 470 Cr.P.C. No useful purpose would be served by again directing the complainant to approach the Trial Magistrate for the purposes of seeking extension of period of limitation. The complainant is held to have explained the delay in filing the complaint which required extension. The complaint is, therefore, held to be within time and the petitioner is not entitled to be discharged on this ground. Appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Application for discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Interpretation of Section 13(3) of the Official Secrets Act regarding obtaining sanction before filing a complaint.3. Exclusion of time period for obtaining sanction in computing the period of limitation.4. Requirement of consent or sanction for filing a complaint under the Act.5. Extension of time under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.6. Impact of the judgment on pending proceedings under the Act.Issue 1: Application for Discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureThe petitioner filed an application under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Trial Court seeking discharge, contending that the prosecution order lacked appropriate authority and the complaint was barred by limitation. The Magistrate rejected the application, which was upheld by the High Court, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 13(3) of the Official Secrets ActThe Trial Magistrate and the High Court relied on Section 13(3) of the Act, which mandates obtaining consent or sanction from the appropriate Government before filing a complaint. The Court analyzed the provisions of the Act and emphasized that the requirement of consent or sanction is distinct from the order or authority needed for filing a complaint under the Act.Issue 3: Exclusion of Time Period for Obtaining SanctionThe Court considered the time period required for obtaining sanction as per Section 13(3) and Section 470(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was argued that the period for obtaining sanction should be excluded in computing the limitation period for filing a complaint.Issue 4: Requirement of Consent or Sanction for Filing a ComplaintThe Court clarified that no specific sanction or consent is required to be taken from the Government under Section 13(3) of the Act for filing a complaint. The legislative intent was to exclude only the time required for obtaining previous consent or sanction for prosecuting an offense.Issue 5: Extension of Time under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureThe Court highlighted that the complainant has the right to seek an extension of time under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if delay in filing the complaint is explainable. In this case, the delay was attributed to the bonafide belief that obtaining sanction was necessary before filing the complaint.Issue 6: Impact on Pending Proceedings under the ActThe judgment addressed concerns about its impact on pending proceedings where complaints were filed after obtaining sanction. The Court clarified that the judgment would not affect ongoing proceedings where extensions were granted in accordance with the law, ensuring the validity of such extensions under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, directing the Trial Magistrate to proceed with the case as per the law and expedite the disposal of the complaint, maintaining the validity of extensions granted in ongoing proceedings under the Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
