Apex Law Journal
Apex Law Journal
An online law journal reporting latest and important judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.                                                                                                                         Click here to get free legal updates via email                                                                                                                          Click here to download forms (Address Form, List Of Documents and Memorandum Of Appearance)
User Name :
Password :
New Subscriber
Forgot Password
 

Editor

Neha Goel, Advocate

Advisory Board

S.C. Khunger, Advocate

Rohit Bansal, Advocate

Varinder Singh Kanwar, Advocate

Hittan Nehra, Advocate

Judgments on Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 19 — Whether a complaint can be filed by a citizen for prosecuting a public servant for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? — Held, yes.

 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 19 — Grant or refusal of sanction to prosecute — Held, grant or refusal of sanction is not a quasi judicial function and the person for whose prosecution the sanction is sought is not required to be heard by the Competent Authority before it takes a decision in the matter — What is required to be seen by the Competent Authority is whether the facts placed before it which, in a given case, may include the material collected by the complainant or the investigating agency prima facie disclose commission of an offence by a public servant — If the Competent Authority is satisfied that the material placed before it is sufficient for prosecution of the public servant, then it is required to grant sanction — If the satisfaction of the Competent Authority is otherwise, then it can refuse sanction — In either case, the decision taken on the complaint made by a citizen is required to be communicated to him and if he feels aggrieved by such decision, then he can avail appropriate legal remedy.

 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 19 — Grant or refusal of sanction to prosecute — Held, while considering the issue regarding grant or refusal of sanction, the only thing which the Competent Authority is required to see is whether the material placed by the complainant or the investigating agency prima facie discloses commission of an offence — The Competent Authority cannot undertake a detailed inquiry to decide whether or not the allegations made against the public servant are true.

 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 19 — Time limit for grant or refusal of sanction to prosecute — Whether the authority competent to sanction prosecution of a public servant for offences under the 1988 Act is required to take an appropriate decision within the time specified in clause I(15) of the directions contained in paragraph 58 of the judgment of this Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 and the guidelines issued by the Central Government, Department of Personnel and Training and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)? — Held, yes — In future every Competent Authority shall take appropriate action on the representation made by a citizen for sanction of the prosecution of a public servant strictly in accordance with the direction contained in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 and the guidelines framed by the CVC. 

 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 19(1) — Argument of the learned Attorney General that the question of grant of sanction for prosecution of a public servant charged with any of the offences enumerated in Section 19(1) arises only at the stage when the Court decides to take cognizance and any request made prior to that is premature, held, cannot be accepted — The argument is neither supported by the plain language of the section nor the judicial precedents relied upon by him. 

 
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 19(1) — A mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is not considered to be fatal unless it has resulted in a failure of justice or has been occasioned thereby — Section 19 (1) of the PC Act 1988 is a matter of procedure and does not go to the root of the jurisdiction and once the cognizance has been taken by the Court under Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that an invalid police report is the foundation of jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance.

 
Friday, December 24, 2010
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 19 — The exercise of power under Section 19 is not an empty formality since the Government or for that matter the sanctioning authority is supposed to apply its mind to the entire material and evidence placed before it and on examination thereof reach conclusion fairly, objectively and consistent with public interest as to whether or not in the facts and circumstances sanction be accorded to prosecute the public servant.

 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 19 — A change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for reviewing or reconsidering the earlier order refusing to grant sanction.

 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 19 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 197 — Whether the State has any power of review in the matter of grant or refusal of sanction to prosecute the public servant? — Held, once the statutory power under Section 19 of the 1988 Act or Section 197 of the Code has been exercised by the Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, it is not permissible for the sanctioning authority to review or reconsider the matter on the same materials again — However, in a case where fresh materials have been collected by the investigating agency subsequent to the earlier order and placed before the sanctioning authority and on that basis, the matter is reconsidered by the sanctioning authority and in light of the fresh materials an opinion is formed that sanction to prosecute the public servant may be granted, there may not be any impediment to adopt such course.

 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 19 — Power vested in the Government in reviewing its order granting or refusing sanction to prosecute the public servant in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, held, is not unbridled or unrestricted.

 
Monday, April 13, 2009
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 2(c)(ix) — Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Bank, come within the definition of “public servant” under Section 2(c)(ix) of the 1988 Act.

 
Act Topic
Rule Citation
Keyword
 
Free Text Search
 
Follow us on :
(Best view with 1024x768 Resolution)
© All rights including Copyrights and rights of translations etc, reserved and vested exclusively with Deepak Publications. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronics, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrival system of any nature without the written permission of the copyright owner.

By using this site, you (and any entity on whose behalf your are acting) are consenting to be bound by Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy & Disclaimer Clause.