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

2001 Supreme(Kar) 232

K.SREEDHAR RAO
H. S. GOTLA – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates:
G.Bhawani Singh, V.A.RAMASHARMA

( 1 ) THE Criminal Petition filed against the registration of a case in LAC (CR) No. 2 of 1999 on the file of the Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Gulabarga against the petitioner herein. The petitioner is working as a Inspector of Excise. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta has registered the case against the petitioner for offences under S. 13 (1) (e) r/w. S. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging that the assets held by the petitioner is disproportionate to the known source of income. After registration of the FIR against petitioner embarked upon the investigation. At this stage, the legality of the registration of case and conduct of investigation is in challenge.

( 2 ) HEARD the State Public prosecutor and the Counsel for the petitioner in this regard. The provisions of S. 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act mandates a previous sanction by the officer not below the rank of the Superintendent of Police for investigation of the offence under S. 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. For the benefit of easy reference, the provisions of S. 17 are extracted hereunder :"17. Persons authorised to investigate : Notwithstanding anything contained





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