R.M.LODHA, H.L.GOKHALE
Dinesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Chairman, Airport Authority of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant is being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “P.C. Act”).
3. On November 4, 2009, the sanctioning authority granted sanction to prosecute the appellant for the offences indicated above. After the sanction order was challenged by the appellant in the High Court on November 26, 2009, the charge-sheet has been filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) -respondent No. 2- against the appellant on November 30, 2009 in the Court of Special Judge, Ernakulam. Following that, summons came to be issued to the appellant on December 18, 2009. During the pendency of the matter before the High Court, wherein the sanction order has been challenged by the appellant, the Court of Special Judge has taken cognizance against the appellant.
4. The Single Judge of the High Court was not persuaded with the contentions raised by the appellant and dismissed the appellant’s Writ Petition on July 19, 2010.
5. Against the order of the Single Judge, the appellant preferred an intra-court appeal. The Division Bench of the High Cour
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat; (1997)7SCC 622
Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors.; 1998(5) SCC 749
Abdul Wahab Ansari vs. State of Bihar and another, (2000)8 SCC 500
Parkash Singh Badal and another vs. State of Punjab and others, (2007)1 SCC 1
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.