Back
H. P. SANDESH
State By Lokayuktha Bengaluru Rural District – Appellant
Versus
H. R. vishwanath – Respondent
JUDGMENT
H.P. Sandesh, J. - This criminal revision petition is filed praying this Court to set aside the order dated 05.04.2011 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in Special Case No.21/2008 and direct the Trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that Karnataka Lokayuktha police have submitted a charge-sheet against the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption act, 1988. The allegation against the respondent-accused is that, he being a Public Servant working as Junior Town Planner in the office of the Bangalore International airport Development authority, has demanded a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- for issuing No Objection Certificate for conversion of certain lands situated in Kannamangala and Poojenahalli Villages in Devanahalli Taluk and he was caught red-handed while demanding and accepting the bribe amount from the complainant on 15.09.2006 and the tainted currency notes were also recovered from the possession of the accused.
3. The respondent-accused has filed an application under Section 19 of the Prevention o
The validity of the sanction to prosecute under the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 depends on the application of mind by the sanctioning authority and their full knowledge of the material facts o....
The judgment established that the absence of sanction can be raised at the inception and at the threshold as it goes to the root of the matter. It also emphasized that the validity or illegality of t....
(1) Question with regard to validity of such sanction should be raised at the earliest stage of proceedings.(2) Interlocutory application seeking discharge in midst of trial would not be maintainable....
A public servant cannot be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act without a valid sanction from the competent authority, and such authority cannot delegate its power to grant or refuse san....
The court established that the authority to grant sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be correctly identified, and failure to do so can lead to erroneous discharge of accused.
The Competent Authority cannot review its earlier decision to refuse sanction without fresh materials, and there is a distinction between absence of sanction and alleged invalidity on account of non-....
The amendment to Sec. 19(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act extends the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution to include public servants who were in service at the time of the alleged ....
The court held that while it can review sanctions for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, disputed facts must be resolved in criminal court, not through writ jurisdiction.
Point of law : Section 19(3) of the PC Act indicates that it deals with three situations: (i) Sub-Clause (a) deals a situation where a final judgment and sentence has been delivered by the Special Ju....
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
