TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 1330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Ojha, Adv., Ms. Nutan Mishra, Adv. For the State : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP. (in all cases). ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. With the consent of parties, all these cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. In this case, petitioner is challenging the order dated 1st July 2010 passed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mentioned in Para-10 of the FIR. From the plain reading of the FIR it appears that loans were granted to the Grih Pravesh Engineers & Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. Patna in that process financial irregularity was committed. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on the reading of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner as there is no allegation that the petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction, it is dependents as to whether the allegation made has any nexus with the official duty or not. Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relied on the judgment reported in AIR 2001 SC 2457 (P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim). In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that sanction can be looked into at any stage of trial as it is dependent on stage to stage The issue of....