BARKAT ALI ZAIDI
PRABHAT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent
( 2 ) AT the commencement of Trial before the Special Judge, the applicant raised a plea that he could not be prosecuted without a sanction being obtained from the District Magistrate, who was his appointing authority and since no sanction has been obtained, the prosecution could not proceed. The learned Judge overruled this objection and held by his order dated 9-12-1998 that no sanction was necessary for the prosecution of the applicant.
( 3 ) THE only question canvassed at the bar and arising in the petition, therefore, is whether sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was necessary or not?
( 4 ) HEARD Sri P. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant, Addl. Government advocate for the Stale and Sri S. N. Siddiqui for the Opp. Party No. 2.
( 5 ) COUNSEL for the applicant has relied on the case of R. S. Nayak v.
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.