Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
S. Nagaraj – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, The Union of India, Department of Agriculture – Respondent
ORDER :
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
The Writ Petitioner has filed this writ Petition challenging the sanction order accorded by the second respondent in G.O.Ms.No.104 (Agriculture (AA2) Department, dated 03.03.2016, to the Vigilance Department to prosecute him for the offences under Sections 167 , 409, 420, 468, 472 and 477-A of IPC r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.The Petitioner was working as a Seed Certification Officer, Kovilpatti. During his tenure, he and other accused were said to have committed certain malpractice, which resulted in misappropriation of the subsidy amount allotted for the National Food Security Mission and National Agriculture Development Programme scheme, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thoothukudi, registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 409 r/w 109 of IPC and 13(1)(c) and (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and investigated the matter and after obtaining sanction from the second respondent in G.O.Ms.No.104 (Agriculture (AA2) Department, dated 03.03.2016, filed the final report. The same was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2016 by the learned Ch
The court established that a writ petition challenging a prosecution sanction is non-maintainable post-cognizance, affirming that the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to relevant materials, ....
The court held that while it can review sanctions for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, disputed facts must be resolved in criminal court, not through writ jurisdiction.
The Government cannot grant prosecution sanction based on the same material after initially declining it without fresh evidence.
A valid sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, and any failure to do so renders the sanction invalid.
The challenge to the order of sanction on the ground of improper application of mind or non-consideration of relevant material is required to be raised during trial and established by leading evidenc....
Point of law: A sanction which names the person to be prosecuted and specifies the provision of the Order which he is alleged to have contravented is not a sufficient compliance of Cl. 23. In order t....
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
