Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B L Hansaria, G N Ray
RAJESH KUMAR KEJRIWAL AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER, RESPONDENT.
Criminal Appeal No. 1901 of 1996 (Arising out of SLP No. 400 of 1996), decided on November 1, 1996.
Dowry Prohibition Act - Previous Sanction - The court held that previous sanction from the appropriate authority is required before taking cognizance for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961. Prosecution under Section 4 without sanction is not permissible.
Fact of the Case:
The limited question was whether previous sanction is required before taking cognizance for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961. The prosecution was launched under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act without obtaining the necessary sanction.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the cognizance of offences under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as it was launched without the required sanction. However, it allowed the respondents to initiate proceedings under the provision after obtaining appropriate sanction. Cognizance of other offences under the Indian Penal Code was found to be within jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issue was whether previous sanction was necessary for initiating prosecution under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the amendment in the Bihar Act IV of 1976, which added a proviso requiring previous sanction of the State Government or specified officer before initiating prosecution under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Final Decision: The court quashed the cognizance of offences under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but allowed the initiation of proceedings after obtaining appropriate sanction. Cognizance of other offences under the Indian Penal Code was upheld.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The limited question on which the notice was issued is to the effect whether previous sanction is required to be taken from the appropriate authority before taking cognizance for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961. It appears that under amendment in the Bihar Act IV of 1976, a proviso has been added under which it is necessary that previous sanction of the State Government or of such officer as the State Government may, by general or special order, specify in that behalf, should be obtained before initiating any prosecution under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Such amendment was given effect to from 20-1-1976. The prosecution having been launched under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with other offences on 2-3-1994, such prosecution under the Dowry Prohibition Act without sanction is not permissible. Cognizance of offences under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is, therefore, quashed. It will, however, be open to the respondents to initiate proceeding under the provision under the said provision after taking appropriate sanction. So far as cognizance of other is concerned, namely, Section 323, 34, 378, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, there is nothing on record to hold that cognizance was without jurisdiction. This appeal is accordingly disposed of.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
