Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice P.Velmurugan, J
State represented by The Public Prosecutor – Appellant
Versus
R.Leelavathi W/o.Paul Gunasekaran – Respondent
ORDER :
P. Velmurugan, J.
All these criminal revisions have been filed by the State against the order of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for the Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, whereby, the petitioners and the other accused were discharged from the case against them in C.C.No.84 of 2011.
2 Originally, P.R.Sundaram, Member of Legislative Assembly, Government of Tamilnadu, presented a complaint before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, on 21.11.2000 against Pulavar Senguttuvan, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry and nine others. On the directions issued by the Court, preliminary enquiry was conducted and report was submitted on 14.03.2001. After finalising the report, the same was sent to Government seeking concurrence. In the meantime, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, by an order dated 17.07.2003, directed the Director of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Chennai, to register a regular case and proceed further based on the complaint given by said P.R.Sundaram.
2.1 Therefore a case in Cr.No.3/AC/22003/H.Q. was registered against A1 Pulavar Senguttuvan, Former Minister for Animal Husbandry, A2 Dr.R.Leelavathi, Former Director, Directorate of Veteri
The court held that defects in sanction do not invalidate prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the existence of conspiracy must be evaluated during trial.
Public servants can be charged with conspiracy and misappropriation for fraudulent actions under specific schemes without a need for prior sanction after retirement, if substantial evidence supports ....
Public servant needs protection from prosecution under IPC only if acts are connected to official duties; lack of nexus and undue delay infringes the right to a speedy trial.
Prosecution of public servants for corruption does not require sanction when actions are not related to official duties.
The competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution of an IAS officer is the Central Government under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Competent Authority cannot review its earlier decision to refuse sanction without fresh materials, and there is a distinction between absence of sanction and alleged invalidity on account of non-....
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
