TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 emphasizes valid prosecution sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the respondent's conviction due to the lack of a valid sanction for prosecution under the ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the sanction for prosecution.2. Competency of the authority issuing the sanction.3. Applicability of the delegation of powers under relevant rules.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Sanction for Prosecution:The primary issue in this case was whether the sanction for prosecution of the respondent under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and Section 161 of the Penal Code was valid. The High Court had set aside the conviction on the sole ground that the sanction for prosecution had not been accorded by a competent authority. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the sanction must be given by an authority competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the alleged offense was committed.2. Competency of the Authority Issuing the Sanction:The Supreme Court examined whether Brig. Naresh Prasad, Chief Engineer, North Western Zone, Chandigarh, had the authority to sanction the prosecution of the respondent. The Court noted that, as per the relevant rules, the authority competent to appoint the respondent on 24-6-1971 was the Chief Engineer Western Command, Simla, and not the Zonal Chief Engineer. Therefore, the sanction for prosecution given by Brig. Naresh Prasad was invalid.3. Applicability of the Delegation of Powers Under Relevant Rules:The Court analyzed the delegation of powers under the Civilians in Defence Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1952, and 1965. It was argued that the delegation of power to appoint and remove Class III officers was given to Chief Engineers of Commands and not to Zonal Chief Engineers. The Court found that the reorganization in December 1962, which created Zonal Chief Engineers, did not automatically extend the delegation of powers to these new positions. The letter dated 27-4-1956, which delegated appointment powers to Chief Engineers of Commands, did not cover Zonal Chief Engineers created later. The Court concluded that the Zonal Chief Engineers were a separate class under the overall control of the Chief Engineers of Commands.The Court also addressed the letter dated 23-1-1963, which purportedly extended the powers of appointment to Zonal Chief Engineers. The Court found this letter insufficient as it was not issued by the Engineer-in-Chief and did not constitute a valid delegation of powers under Rule 10. The Court emphasized that the assumption made in the letter regarding the delegation of powers was incorrect, leading to the necessity of a proper order on 14-1-1972 delegating such powers to Zonal Chief Engineers.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the conviction of the respondent due to the lack of a valid sanction for prosecution. The Court clarified that the authority issuing the sanction must be competent to remove the public servant from office at the time of the alleged offense. The Court dismissed the appeal, noting that this does not preclude a fresh prosecution if the State chooses to pursue it.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
