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 clarifies no sanction needed under Prevention of Corruption Act Section 19</h1> The Supreme Court held that no sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was required for the appellants. The court affirmed the ... - Issues Involved:1. Necessity of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.2. Validity of the trial in the absence of sanction.3. Interpretation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.4. Relevance of previous judgments and their applicability.5. Doctrine of obiter dicta and per incuriam in the context of prior judgments.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Necessity of Sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act:The primary issue was whether sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was necessary for prosecuting the appellants. The appellants argued that since they were public servants at the time of taking cognizance, sanction was mandatory. The court examined the language of Section 19(1), which states that no court shall take cognizance of an offence without prior sanction. The appellants cited previous judgments to support their claim that sanction was indispensable.2. Validity of the Trial in the Absence of Sanction:The Special Judge and the High Court had previously ruled that no sanction was necessary since the appellants had not abused their current office. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions, noting that the appellants were charged with offences committed while holding different offices. The court emphasized that sanction is required only if the public servant is accused of abusing the office they currently hold.3. Interpretation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act:The court analyzed Section 19 in detail, including its sub-sections and the explanation provided. The court concluded that the requirement for sanction is linked to the office alleged to have been abused. If the public servant no longer holds that office, no sanction is necessary. The court rejected the appellants' argument for a literal interpretation, stating that such an interpretation would lead to absurd results and could shield unscrupulous public servants.4. Relevance of Previous Judgments and Their Applicability:The appellants argued that the judgments in Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab and RS Nayak v. A.R. Antulay were not correctly decided and required reconsideration. The court examined these judgments and found that they were consistent with the interpretation of Section 19. The court also noted that these judgments had stood the test of time and should not be disturbed.5. Doctrine of Obiter Dicta and Per Incuriam:The appellants contended that the decision in RS Nayak v. A.R. Antulay was obiter dicta and should not be binding. The court disagreed, stating that the observations in Antulay's case were essential to the decision and not obiter. The court also rejected the argument that the decision was per incuriam, noting that the relevant provisions of the Act were considered in detail.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that no sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was necessary for the appellants. The court affirmed the validity of the trial and upheld the previous judgments, emphasizing the need for a rational interpretation of the law to prevent misuse and ensure justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
