Back
AMIT B. BORKAR
Sudarshan Kumar Abrol – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The applicants-original accused nos.5 and 7 in CBI Special Case No.67 of 2013, are challenging the order dtd. 26/9/2018, passed in Special Case No.67 of 2013, rejecting the discharge Application of applicants for offences punishable under Ss. 120B read with 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sec. 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The gist of allegations against the applicants is that they conspired to cheat and defraud the Syndicate Bank, Shivaji Nagar Branch, Pune, to Rs.54.68 Crores during 2004-2007 in cash credit account of M/s. Satav Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. in sanction and release of various credit facilities to the said company.
2. On 6/3/2009, the Chief Vigilance Officer of Syndicate Bank filed a complaint with CBI against M/s. Satav Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. alleging they conspired with other accused to cheat and defraud the Syndicate Bank from 2004-2007.
3. On 26/3/2009, CBI registered a crime vide FIR No.RC-8(E)/2009/CBI/B.S.&F.C.Mumbai against M/s. Satav Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Applicant no.1 (original accused no.5) was Regional Head at Pune from 7/5/2002 to 23/10/2006, and applicant no.2 (ori
The main legal point established is that the competent authority's refusal of sanction under Sec. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while the accused were in service barred their prosecution afte....
Sanction for prosecution of public servants must reflect independent assessment; repeated refusals by the authority, absent new evidence, undermine legitimacy of prosecution.
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 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....
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....
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....
The competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution of an IAS officer is the Central Government under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
A valid sanction for prosecution requires a thorough application of mind by the sanctioning authority; failure to meet this standard renders the sanction invalid.
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....
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
