Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was necessary to prosecute a compulsorily retired public servant for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Analysis: The relevant time for applying Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is the stage when the Court takes cognizance. Since the petitioner had already been compulsorily retired and the Tribunal order restoring him had remained stayed, he was no longer in service when the charge-sheet was filed and cognizance was taken. The alleged criminal misconduct was also not an act done in discharge of official duty or under the colour of such duty, because entering into criminal misconduct, criminal conspiracy, or obtaining pecuniary advantage by abusing official position cannot form part of official functions. In addition, an officer of a corporation or public undertaking cannot claim the protection of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 merely because of his position in that body.
Conclusion: No sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was required.