in prevention of Corruption Act previous sanction of prosecution is required under section 19 of Prevention of corruption Act 1988

 criminal appeals, Nos. 444 and 448 of 2014, heard by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. These appeals challenge a judgment and order of conviction dated July 21, 2014, passed by the Special Judge in Chandrapur in a case concerning the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Here is a summary and analysis of the key points from the judgment:

  1. Background of the Case:

    • The appellants, Prabhat s/o Ram Ambhurkar and Prashant s/o Shankar Chatreshwar, were convicted for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
    • The trial court convicted Prabhat Ambhurkar for offenses under Section 7 (public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration) and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) (criminal misconduct by a public servant).
    • Prabhat was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fined Rs. 500, with additional imprisonment for non-payment of the fine​​.

  2. Points of Appeal:

    • The appellants challenged the validity of the sanction order required for prosecuting them.
    • They contended that the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind and that the sanction was accorded mechanically, without considering the necessary facts and evidence​​.

  3. Court's Analysis on Sanction Validity:

    • The court emphasized the importance of a valid sanction, which is a safeguard to ensure that government servants are not subjected to frivolous prosecutions.
    • Citing various Supreme Court decisions, the judgment highlighted that the sanctioning authority must have full knowledge of the material facts and apply its mind independently before granting sanction​​.
    • The court scrutinized whether the sanctioning authority had considered all relevant documents and evidence before according the sanction.

  4. Observations on Evidence and Demand:

    • The court observed discrepancies in the prosecution's case, particularly in proving the demand and acceptance of the bribe.
    • The evidence of the shadow witness (PW2) and the complainant (PW1) did not convincingly establish that the accused had made any explicit demand for the bribe​​.

  5. Conclusion and Judgment:

    • The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond a reasonable doubt.
    • Given the lack of evidence on demand, mere recovery of the bribe amount was insufficient to convict the accused.
    • Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court were set aside​​.

    • Sajjad Husain Advocate High Court Lucknow, Advocate Chamber No. 515 Block C High COurt Lucknow UP E-Mail ID advocatesajjad@gmail.com WhatsApp No. 7080909786

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pass port officer can retain and stop, kept pending, timely released ordered by Supreme Court of India SPL Cri 4297 of 2023

 Supreme Court of India, in the case of Vishal Shah vs. Monalisha Gupta & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. of 2025, arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 4297 of 2023), made significant observations and rulings regarding the impounding of the appellant's passport . Here is a detailed summary of the Court's findings and orders specifically related to the passport issue: Key Facts Related to Passport: Passport Impounding : The appellant's passport was impounded on October 3, 2018 , by the Indian authorities under Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967 . This action was taken based on the multiple criminal and civil cases filed by the respondent (Monalisha Gupta) against the appellant and his family members. Challenge to Impounding : The appellant challenged the impounding of his passport before the Calcutta High Court through a writ petition (WPA No. 4743 of 2020). However, the High Court dismissed the petition on January 15, 2021 , and upheld the impounding, barring the appellant from...
Read more

Victim Has Right To Participate In Trial But No Right To Be Impleaded In Criminal Revision: Delhi High Court Nupur Thapliyal 25 May 2024 4:20 PM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 19.03.2024 Pronounced on: 24.05.2024 + CRL.M.C. 8758/2023 & CRL.M.A. 7381/2024 VLS FINANCE LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Bharat Chugh, Mr.Jai Allagh, Mr.Maanish M. Choudhary, Mr.Ashok Kr. Sharma, Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Aman Usman, APP for R-1/State. Mr.Vijay Agarwal, Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Mr.Jatin S.Sethi, Advs. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA J U D G M E N T    The judgment primarily addresses the issue of whether a victim or complainant in a criminal case has the right to be impleaded as a party in revision petitions and other criminal proceedings. The court's decision rests on the interpretation of several sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and relevant case law. Key Points of the Judgment: Right to be Heard vs. Right to be Impleaded: The court distinguished between the right to be heard and the right to be impleaded as a party in criminal...
Read more

No permission of Court is required for passport even if criminal is under investigation or pending for trail in Court Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench Writ C No. 5587 of 2024 (Umapati Vs. union of India & Ors) Justice Alok Mathur and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal J

Image
  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k38ZX85i9zEI39YQzcCVX33qlxX1pwZZ/view?usp=drivesdk 1.  Allahabad High Court sitting at Lucknow has held that pass port authority has no power to kept pending the passport application of citizens  2. Time bound disposal is mandatory  3. Pendency of criminal case is no ground to pending and kept the matter in pending  4. Pass port is right of citizen  5. Holding passport is fundamental right of citizens 
Read more