M. NAGAPRASANNA
SIDDARAMAIAH S/O SHRI SIDDARAME GOWDA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is the Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka. He is knocking at the doors of this Court, calling in question a GUBERNATORIAL order, which grants permission or approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the PC Act’ for short) and sanction under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘ BNSS ’ for short) against him.
2. Sans details, introductory facts, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

Yeshwanth Sinha v. Central Bureau of Investigation
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India
B.P.L. Limited v. S.P. Gururaja
Badrinath v. Govt. of T.N. (2000) 8 SCC 395 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 13
Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India
Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji
Dr. J. Jayalalitha v. Dr. Channa Reddy
Election Commission of India v. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy
Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab
Institute of Chartered Accountants v. L.K. Ratna
J. Mohapatra and Co. v. State of Orissa
Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524
Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh
M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P. (2004) 8 SCC 788 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1
Madhya Pradesh Police Establishment v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Mahabir Prasad Sharma v. Prafulla Chandra Ghose
Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) Ltd. v. Lannon
Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner
Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker
P. Sirajuddin Vs. State of Madras
Pfizer Ltd. v. Mazdoor Congress
Pratapsingh Raojirao Rane v. Governor of Goa
Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India
S. Parthasarathi v. State Of Andhra Pradesh
Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab
State of M.P. v. Dr. Yashwant Trimbak
State of Maharashtra v. R.S. Naik
State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Naik
The Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines Vs. RAMJEE
The Governor can exercise discretion to grant prosecutorial sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act even against a Chief Minister if the Council of Ministers' advice appears biased.
It becomes imperative for authority to apply its mind to what is brought before it, as application of mind is bedrock of any order that an authority passes, failing which, it would be contrary to pri....
Point of law: Prevention of corruption – Good faith - Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be made applicable in those cases where the act of the public servant that amounts to an o....
Corruption – Investigation - Inquiry is a formal investigation; investigation is a search. Therefore, the act casts an obligation of application of mind upon the authority to consider whether approva....
Section 17A PC Act inapplicable to disproportionate assets cases; previous approval only for offences linked to official recommendations/decisions. Competent authority cannot investigate merits or de....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 17A of the PC Act, 1988, which restricts the requirement of prior approval for initiating enquiry/....
Point of Law : Inherent power can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential under the Prevention of Corruption Act; absence of such evidence warrants quashing of FIR.
Cognizance of offences against public servants requires prior government sanction under Sections 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 197 of the Cr.P.C., even if the acts are alleged to be done....
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.