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

2001 Supreme(SC) 1324

K.T.THOMAS, S.N.VARIAVA
SATYA NARAYAN SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent


Judgment

THOMAS, J.

( 1 ) I am in respectful agreement with the judgment drafted by brother Variava, J. When Parliament imposed an undiluted ban against granting stay of any proceedings involving an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act) on any ground whatsoever, no Court shall circumvent the said ban through any means. The reasons which prompted the Parliament to divest all the Courts in India of the power to stay the proceedings in the trial Courts involving any such offence, is to foreclose even the possible chance of delaying such trials on account of any party to such proceedings raising any question before the High Court during the pendency of trial proceedings.

( 2 ) IN the Objects and Reasons for bringing the Act with new measures the law-makers declared it in abundantly clear terms that a provision prohibiting the grant of stay is included in the statute for speeding up the proceedings. This can be discerned from the following words :"in order to expedite the proceedings, provisions for day-to-day trial of cases and prohibitory provisions with regard to grant of stay and exercise of powers of revision on interlocutory orders have also been inclu




























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