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>Invalidation of Special Judge's Cognizance Order due to Lack of Proper Sanction</h1> The Court invalidated the cognizance taken by the Special Judge due to the absence of a valid sanction order for prosecution under the Prevention of ... - Issues:1. Validity of the sanction order for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. Competency of the authority issuing the sanction order.3. Retrospective sanction order and its implications on the case.4. Jurisdictional validity of the cognizance taken by the Special Judge.Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of the sanction order for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The case involved a challenge to the sanction order for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent, a public servant, faced charges of demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The prosecution filed a charge-sheet under relevant sections of the Act. The primary contention was the validity of the sanction order granted by the Company Secretary, as required under Section 19 of the Act. The Court analyzed the provisions of the Act and emphasized the necessity of prior sanction for prosecution in cases involving public servants. The absence of a valid sanction order was deemed to invalidate the cognizance taken by the Special Judge.Issue 2: Competency of the authority issuing the sanction orderThe Court scrutinized the authority competent to issue the sanction order for prosecution. It was established that the Company Secretary, who issued the initial sanction order, was not the competent authority under the relevant rules. Subsequently, another sanction order was issued retrospectively by the Chairman and Managing Director, also not the competent authority as per the rules. The lack of reference to any resolution by the Board of Directors authorizing the sanction orders raised concerns about the validity of the orders.Issue 3: Retrospective sanction order and its implications on the caseThe retrospective nature of the second sanction order, granted after cognizance was taken, was highlighted as a procedural irregularity. The Court emphasized that such retrospective sanction, apart from being issued by an incompetent authority, was legally flawed. The retrospective effect from a date prior to the cognizance being taken further complicated the procedural validity of the prosecution.Issue 4: Jurisdictional validity of the cognizance taken by the Special JudgeThe Court concluded that the absence of a valid sanction order at the time of taking cognizance rendered the subsequent proceedings without jurisdiction. Emphasizing the fundamental requirement of prior sanction for prosecution of public servants under the Act, the Court declared the cognizance taken by the Special Judge as invalid. Consequently, the Court directed the competent authority to issue a fresh sanction order and proceed lawfully from the stage of taking cognizance against the respondent.In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with a directive to restart the proceedings with a valid sanction order in accordance with the law, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in cases involving public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
