SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(MP) 679

R.P.GUPTA
V. P. SHETH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
DILIP NAYAK, S.L.Kochar

R. P. GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) IN this revision petition the preliminary question involved is whether in case of a public servant who has been compulsorily retired, when he is sought to be prosecuted for offence under Section 120-B, I. P. C. and u/ss. 13 (1) (d) (ii) r/w. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a sanction as precondition for his prosecution u/s. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or Section 197, Cr. P. C. , is essential. The petitioner in this case was a member of Indian Administrative Service. At the relevant time of offence he was employed as Managing Director of M. P. Leather Development Corporation. The period was the year 1988-89. The allegation is that during that period he committed criminal misconduct punishable under Sections 13 (1) (d) r/w. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 13 (1) (d) of this Act declared the following conducts of the public servant as criminal misconducts :"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.- (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence or criminal misconduct.- (A) to (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D) if he,- (I) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top