Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, J
Shubhashish Sarkar S/o Late Shri Gopal Chandra Sarkar – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through A.C.B./E.O.W., Raipur, Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Order :
(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)
1. The instant petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 has been filed by the petitioner calling under question the order dated 07/10/2024 passed in Special Criminal Case No.03/2021 by the Special Judge ( Prevention of Corruption Act ) & 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 19 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner has been prosecuted in connection with the FIR No. 17/2020 dated 01.05.2020 registered at Police Station ACB/EOW, Raipur (CG) for offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has filed charge sheet before the Special Court and on the basis of the same the learned Special Court has framed the charges against the petitioner under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner being a public servant has agreed to receive undue benefit of Rs. 1,02,000/- in three installments from the complainant Neeraj Singh Thakur in lieu of payment of bill
A valid sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be obtained before charges are framed; post-charge challenges to sanction are not permissible.
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....
The court emphasized that at the charge framing stage, the trial court must evaluate prosecution materials as true without considering the defense, and prosecution sanction is necessary for certain c....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sanction must be accorded by the Competent Authority as per Sec. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the material collected for on....
Sanction for prosecution of public servants must reflect independent assessment; repeated refusals by the authority, absent new evidence, undermine legitimacy of prosecution.
The Prevention of Corruption Act encompasses both public servants and private individuals in corruption-related offences, allowing for prosecution of those who aid or abet corrupt practices.
The validity of prosecution sanction must be evaluated at trial; minor irregularities do not nullify proceedings without evident failure of justice.
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
