Back
KERALA HIGH COURT
A. Hariprasad, J
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau Tvm v. K. Sasikala and Others
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. mandatory court permission for further investigation is unnecessary. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. the trial court dismissed permission for further investigation based on old evidentiary standards. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. judicial precedents clarify the investigating officer's autonomy. (Para 11 , 12 , 18) |
| 4. investigating officers have statutory rights, and seeking permission is typically courteous. (Para 20 , 26 , 31) |
| 5. the revision petition is allowed, maintaining procedural integrity. (Para 35) |
1. Is it mandatory for the investigating agency or officer to seek and obtain permission of the Trial Court for conducting further investigation under S.173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), after filing final report under S.173(2) of the Code? This is the core question that arises for consideration in the present case.
2. A case was registered by the Vigilance and Anti - Corruption Bureau (VACB), Special Cell, Thiruvananthapuram as V.C.No.2/2004 / SCT alleging commission of corrupt practices in relation to purchase of medicines in the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram for the year 2003-2004. After completing the investigation, final report
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
