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 validity of sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could be examined at a pre-charge stage, and whether any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction had resulted in a failure of justice.
Analysis: The governing framework under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 requires the prosecution to place the full relevant record before the sanctioning authority and requires the authority to apply its mind to the material before granting sanction. The Court reiterated that grant of sanction is not a mere formality and that the order should disclose consideration of the relevant material. At the same time, the Court held that the question of validity of sanction is ordinarily examined during trial, while Section 19(3) and Section 19(4) permit interference only where the defect has caused a failure of justice. On the facts, the Court noted the special circumstances that the trial court proceedings had already been affected by interim orders and that material facts had not been fully disclosed before the Court. The Court therefore declined to interfere with the High Court's approach in the peculiar facts, while clarifying that the trial court must proceed uninfluenced by the observations in the judgment.
Conclusion: The challenge to sanction was not accepted as a ground to interfere at this stage, and the appeal failed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
