SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(SC) 136

O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY, V.D.TULZAPURKAR
Premjit Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Harsinder Singh – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Tulzapurkar, J. —

2. We have heard counsel on both sides and we are satisfied that the view of the High Court is clearly erroneous that simply because Sections 191 and 192, Indian Penal Code, are not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(i), Criminal Procedure Code, sanction for prosecution could not be issued. Obviously Section 191 and 192,. Indian Penal Code, are the sections which define offences for which punishment is provided for in Section 193 and Section 193 is admittedly mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(i), Criminal Procedure Code. The view of the High Court being clearly erroneous we feel that the judgment the High Court be quashed. We accordingly quash the same. We would however, like to observe that it will be open to the respondent to raise whatever defence he wants to raise in the prosecution that may be launched against him.

For Citation : (1982)2 SCC 167

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top