Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J
Rajasree Ajith – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.8 of 2023 pending before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The Special Court as per the order dated 27.02.2023 took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) read with Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The petitioner assails the said order in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).
2. Annexure-3 is the final report filed by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Special Investigation Unit-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The said final report was filed in Crime No.5/13/SIU-I. There were 10 accused in the crime. A final report was initially filed excluding the petitioner, who was the 1st accused, based on which C.C.No.25 of 2020 was initiated. The prosecuting agency applied for sanction to prosecute the petitioner, she being a public servant as defined in Section 2(c) of the PC Act. The competent authority declined sanction vide Annexure-2 order. It was thereafter Annexure 3 final report was filed requesting to prosecute the peti
Cognizance of conspiracy does not negate the requirement for sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act when the accused is involved in the commission of the main offence.
Cognizance of offences against public servants requires prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, failing which the cognizance is illegal.
Sanction is not required for filing a final report under S. 173, Cr. P.C. when no evidence is present to warrant prosecution.
Cognizance cannot be taken twice for the same offence, and prosecution sanction is mandatory for public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Valid sanctions under the Prevention of Corruption Act were obtained for prosecution, and previous sanction under the Panchayat Raj Act was not required for the alleged offences.
Criminal liability under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of mens rea; mere participation in decision-making without evidence of corrupt intent does not establish a prima facie case fo....
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
