TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was required for the IPC offences alleged against the petitioner. (ii) Whether the amended Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 applied retrospectively so as to require prior sanction for prosecution before cognizance in a case where the charge sheet had been filed before the amendment came into force. (iii) Whether the order taking cognizance and issuance of summons called for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issue (i): Whether sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was required for the IPC offences alleged against the petitioner.
Analysis: Sanction under Section 197 is attracted only when the alleged act has a reasonable nexus with the discharge or purported discharge of official duty. Allegations of conspiracy, false declaration and obtaining an allotment by concealment do not constitute acts done in discharge of official functions. The question turns on the factual matrix and the trial court must assess that issue on the material before it.
Conclusion: No sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was required at this stage, and the objection was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the amended Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 applied retrospectively so as to require prior sanction for prosecution before cognizance in a case where the charge sheet had been filed before the amendment came into force.
Analysis: The alleged offence related to a period long before the 2018 amendment. The charge sheet had already been filed before the amendment, and the amendment introduced a new obligation to obtain sanction even where the accused had ceased to hold the relevant office. The amendment was held to be prospective, supported by the principle that pending proceedings and completed investigations are governed by the law in force when they were undertaken, absent a clear contrary intention.
Conclusion: The amended Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 did not apply retrospectively, and sanction was not required on that basis.
Issue (iii): Whether the order taking cognizance and issuance of summons called for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The trial court's reasoning was not wholly correct on every point, but its ultimate conclusion that prosecution could proceed was sustainable in law. The court declined to interfere where the result would secure the ends of justice and avoid stalling a prosecution that required full trial.
Conclusion: No interference was warranted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Conclusion: The petition failed in substance, and the proceedings against the petitioner were left undisturbed to continue in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is necessary only for acts reasonably connected with official duty, and an amendment creating a new sanction requirement will not be applied retrospectively to completed investigations and pending prosecutions unless the legislature clearly so provides.
TaxTMI 
