Back
P. G. AJITHKUMAR
K. S. Xavier – Appellant
Versus
James – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The common petitioner is the complainant in Crl.M.P. No.213 of 2019 which he has filed before the Court of the Enquiry commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam.
2. The allegation in the complaint is that the accused, being public servants as president, members of the Managing Committee and staffers of the Thankey Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No.1003, Kadakkarappally, Cherthala, by abusing their official powers misappropriated funds of the bank which was provided by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) and the State Government for the purpose of extending various benefits to the loanees, particularly those who availed agriculture loans. The offences alleged in the complaint are punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.20552 of 2021 in order to ventilate his grievance that as per Ext.P14, the 3rd respondent refused to accord sanction to prosecute the accused. He seeks the following reliefs in the writ petition:
Members of a Co-operative Society receiving government aid are considered public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, necessitating sanction for prosecution.
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....
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....
Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not prevent criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act if the charges involve higher proof standards; 'public servant' includes cooperati....
The court affirmed that bank executives are public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, liable for prosecution for misconduct.
No previous sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is required for a Bank Manager and there is no requirement of obtaining the previous sanction under Section 19 of The Prevention of Corruption Ac....
The court found that no sanction was required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the offences charged against the petitioner.
The prosecution must establish a prima facie case with grave suspicion against the accused, and the element of mens rea and intention must accompany the culpable act or conduct of the accused.
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
