SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Guj) 214

B.C.PATEL, K.R.VYAS
GOPALBHAI MOHANBHAI NAGODA – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: D.N.Patel, M.J.BUDDHBHATTI

VYAS, J.

( 1 ) [his Lordships after stating the facts of the case, further observed :]

( 2 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Budhbhatti, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the prosecution initiated against the appellant is without valid sanction and therefore, the entire trial held against the appellant is illegal and bad for want of proper sanction. Now, in the instant case, the Deputy District development Officer, District Panchayat, Amreli had granted sanction vide order dated 22-5-1984. Mr. L. A. Thakar, PW-2, Exhibit 14 who has been examined in the case had stated that the Director of Anti-Corruption Bureau had sought sanction vide his letter dated 30/04/1984 to prosecute the appellant. Alongwith the said letter, the case papers were also placed. After examining the same, the sanction had been granted vide Exhibit 17. Mr. Thakar in his crossexamination, has stated that the appellant was appointed by the District development Officer and the sanction to prosecute has been given by the Deputy district Development Officer. In this view of the matter, learned Counsel has raised similar contentions as were raised before the trial Court by referring to judgment given by this Court





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top