TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the State had the power to reconsider and grant sanction for prosecution after having earlier refused sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The sanctioning power was treated as an administrative power exercised by the competent authority under the constitutional and business allocation framework. The earlier refusal did not by itself create an absolute bar to reconsideration at a later stage. However, reconsideration had to be based on relevant material and a proper application of mind. On the record, no fresh material was shown to justify reopening the earlier refusal, and the need for review or reconsideration was not demonstrated. The earlier decision had already been taken after considering the relevant records, and mere change of Government or repetition of the request was not enough.
Conclusion: The State did not establish any lawful basis to revisit the earlier refusal of sanction, and the subsequent grant of sanction was unsustainable. The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the High Court's interference with the later sanction order was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A sanctioning authority may reconsider a refusal only on the basis of relevant fresh material and a conscious application of mind; absent such material, a subsequent grant of sanction is invalid.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
