Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R.Nataraj
Karnataka Lokayukta Police – Appellant
Versus
Hirekadalur Prarthamika Krushi Pattina Sahakara Sangh – Respondent
ORDER :
R. Nataraj, J.
The petitioner has challenged an order dated 06.02.2015 in No.HK/PACAS/2014-2015 passed by the respondent No.1 by which consent under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth referred to as 'P.C.Act' for short) to prosecute respondent No.2 was rejected.
2. The petitioner registered Cr.No.14/2012 against the respondent No.2 under Section 13 (1)(e) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C.Act the check period from 18.08.1998 till the date of registration. The respondent No.2 was working as a secretary in the respondent No.1.
3. After completion of the investigation, a final report was prepared which indicated that the respondent No.2 had wealth beyond his known source of income. The petitioner sent a request to the respondent No.1 for sanction to prosecute the respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 in terms of a resolution dated 06.02.2015 declined to grant sanction on the premise that the respondent No.2 was not a public servant. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the rejection of its request to grant sanction to prosecute the respondent No.2.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the balance sheet of
The court held that employees of societies receiving government assistance qualify as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, allowing prosecution for disproportionate assets.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act made it clear that sanction is necessary even for subjecting a retired public servant to pro....
Point of law :Prevention of corruption -Good laws alone would be not sufficient to make our country corruption free, hut there has to be effective enforcement of the same and efforts should be toward....
Cognizance of offences against public servants requires prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, failing which the cognizance is illegal.
The court affirmed that the power to grant or refuse sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be exercised again on the same materials without fresh evidence, ensuring protection agains....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the applicant's status as a public servant under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which influenced the cou....
(1) Employee of a co-operative society which is controlled or aided by Government is covered within comprehensive definition of word ‘public servant’ as defined under P.C. Act.(2) A public servant ne....
Important points:Any grant or any aid at the time of establishment of the society or in any construction or in any structural concept or any aspect would be an aid-The term 'aid' has not been defined....
Members of a Co-operative Society receiving government aid are considered public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, necessitating sanction for prosecution.
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
