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

2000 Supreme(SC) 499

G.B.PATTANAIK, Y.K.SABHARWAL
MANORANJAN PRASAD CHOUDHARY – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


( 1 ) THE proceeding under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner was assailed and an application for discharge was filed by the petitioner-accused on the ground that the appropriate authority has not accorded sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said application having been rejected, the petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court having dismissed the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

( 2 ) THE sole question that arises for consideration is whether sanction has been accorded by the competent authority under Section 19 (l) (c) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The authority competent to remove him from the office is the authority to accord sanction and admittedly, the said authority is the Managing Director of the Company, as contended by the counsel for the petitioner and conceded by Mr B. B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar. In that view of the matter, since there is no sanction of the competent authority, the proceeding is vitiated. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and quash the proceeding.

( 3 ) NEEDLESS to mention, i

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