R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Gujjala Sumalatha – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Crl.P.No. 6568 of 2022 has been filed by accused Nos. 2,3,12 and 26, Crl.P.No.6569 of 2022 has been filed by accused No.1 and Crl.P.No.9258 of 2022 has been filed by accused Nos.4, 8 and 10 in C.C.No.9 of 2022 on the file of the Special Judge for ACB Cases, Kurnool, for quashing the same. The offences set out in the charge sheet against these petitioners are Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 120-B read with Section 34 and 109 IPC and Sections 79(1)(a), 79(1)(f), read with Sections 79(2), 79A(1)(b), 79A(1)(c) read with Sections 79A(2) and 79(1)(h) read with Sections 79(3)(1) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’; and Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. As all the criminal petitions arise out of the same facts and raise similar issues, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.
3. Heard Sri Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.6568 and 6569 of 2022; Sri D.V.Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.9258 of 2022; and Smt.
Birla Corporation Lts., vs. Adventz Investments & Holdings Ltd., & Ors.
State of Gujarat vs. Afroz Mohammad Hasanfatta
State of Uttarakhand vs. Yogendra Nath Arora and Ors.
State (Inspector of Police) Visakhapatnam vs. Surya Sankaram Karri
Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal and Ors., vs. State of Bihar and Ors.
State of Maharashtra & Ors., vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal and Anr.
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat
Bhajan Lal vs. State of Panjab and ors.
M.C. Gupta vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Dehradun
Fibre Boards Private Limited Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore
Prior sanction from the Registrar is mandatory for prosecution under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, and failure to obtain it invalidates the proceedings.
Criminal proceedings under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act require prior sanction from the Registrar; failure to obtain such sanction invalidates the prosecution.
Cognizance of offences against public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires prior sanction from a competent authority, which cannot be substituted by sanction from a State Governme....
Mandatory requirement of previous sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the effect of retirement on prosecution when sanction is refused during the public servant's serv....
The court found that no sanction was required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the offences charged against the petitioner.
Grant or refusal of sanction for prosecution is not an empty formality – Act of according sanction for prosecution must be preceded by proper application of mind by competent authority.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sanction must be accorded by the Competent Authority as per Sec. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the material collected for on....
At the stage of framing charges, the court is required to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, without delving into the probative value of the materia....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.