Skip to main content

A Court cannot direct the sanctioning authority to reconsider the issue of grant of sanction

Gujarat High Court has held that a Court cannot direct the sanctioning authority to reconsider the issue of grant of sanction. Justice J.B. Pardiwala allowed a special criminal application filed by a Policeman accused of Police Inspector accused of demanding illegal gratification, seeking to quash the order wherein the Sessions Judge rejected the report filed by the A.C.B. under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court observed after taking cognizance, without sanction, the Judge directed the authority concerned to reconsider the issue of grant of sanction. “Of course, on plain reading of the order, it appears that there is no direction to accord sanction, but having regard to the language used the direction is to reconsider the question of sanction. In my view, suchorder should not have been passed by the Court concerned. There was no reason for the Special Judge to be so anxious to prosecute the petitioner”, Justice Pardiwala said. The Court referring to Mansukhlal Vithal das Chauhan v. State of Gujarat observed “The case in hand is one in which the learned Judge was anxious to prosecute the petitioner. But his anxiety cannot help as he could not legally pass such an order to reconsider the question of grant of sanction. I am of the view that it was beyond his jurisdiction. Even if there is no direction, still by passing such order, he was himself compelling the Sanctioning Authority to accord sanction under compulsion.“ The court, directing the court below to reconsider the final report by investigating agency, observed that no Court of a Special Judge under the Act can take cognizance of an offence except with the previous sanction of theappropriate authority.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a