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