Cognizance taken without sanction does not prevent ED to seek cognizance again after obtaining the necessary sanction
Factual Aspect: This appeal addresses the quashing of a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against a public servant due to the absence of the required sanction. Consideration of Submissions: In accordance with Section 197(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), government servants can only be prosecuted with prior sanction for actions carried out in the course of their official duties. Several important points arise: 1. The accused has the opportunity to present the lack of sanction as a defense after cognizance has been taken. 2. It is essential that the actions described in the complaint are linked to the performance of their official responsibilities. Notably, no provisions within the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) are in conflict with Section 197(1) CrPC. While the cognizance taken by the Special Court lacks validity due to the absence of sanction, this situation opens the door for the ED to seek cognizance again in the future, provided they obtain the necessary sanction. This path forward allows for adherence to legal requirements while ensuring accountability.
Plea of alibi gone wrong for murder case also defence on lack of sanction won’t work
The case revolves around police officials from Murar Police Station, Gwalior, who allegedly forged an arrest to protect Ashok Dixit, an accused in a murder case. The investigation led to the suspension of the involved officials and the filing of a charge sheet against them. The High Court quashed the proceedings due to the lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, which protects public servants from prosecution without government approval. The complainant has appealed against this quash order, questioning whether the CJM, Firozabad, could take cognizance of the charge sheets without the required sanction. The appellant, Om Prakash Yadav, lodged an FIR for murder against several individuals, including Ashok Dixit, after witnessing the killing of his brother and the injury of his nephew. On the same day, another FIR was registered against Ashok Dixit for carrying illegal liquor, allegedly to create an alibi. The charge sheet in the murder case was submitted before the CJM, Firozabad, while the investigation into the liquor case continued, implicating several police officials in the forgery. The appeals arise from a common judgment by the High Court of Allahabad, which quashed the proceedings of two cases pending before the CJM, Firozabad. The primary issue is whether the CJM could take cognizance of the charge sheets without the required sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The case highlights the complexities of legal procedures and the protection afforded to public servants under the law.
Discharge: P.C Act: Even taking the entire material as correct the only suspicion which is the speed of sanctioning the proposal was a mere suspicion not enough to frame the charge
The CBI filed a final report (charge sheet) under the IPC and PC Act for a loss of ₹436 crores to the bank due to the accused company. Allegations suggest the bank incurred an undue loss while the company gained. The trial court dismissed the discharge application, but the Hon’ble High Court allowed it. The Apex Court reviewed the submissions and found no allegations against the respondent regarding the SBLC sanction. The only suspicion about the speed of the proposal’s sanction was insufficient for framing charges. The Supreme Court determined that no offence was made out against the respondent and upheld the discharge order.
No discharge after framing of charges: MLA is not a person who can be removed with the sanction of the government
Suo-Motu revision was taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court against the discharge order on the second discharge application – Suo-Motu Crl.R.C No: 1559 of 2023.
Sanction: Manufacturing or fabrication of public documents and records cannot be a part of the official duty of a public servant hence sanction not required
Head note: Challenge – Facts – Quash preferred – Quash dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court – Charge sheet filed against the accused – Respondent/accused again approached High court and set aside the charge sheet and other order – Question involved: Whether sanction required to prosecute respondent no.2? – Section 197 Cr.P.C – Sanction explained – a view can be taken that manufacturing of such documents or fabrication of records cannot be a part of the official duty of a public servant – Parties.
Section197 Cr.P.C: Sanction is required only to take cognizance by courts and not to file final reports
Section197 Cr.P.C: Sanction is required only to take cognizance by courts and not to file final reports. Investigation officer has to sent for sanction only after filing the final report before the concerned court.
All about sanction and approver
Pardon & Approver.
Sanction: How sanctioning authority shall examine the case presented before him?
Understanding the process of examining cases by sanctioning authorities. Learn the steps involved.
Supreme court explained the yardstick for sanction
Supreme court explained the yardstick for sanction
Whether sanction is necessary at the stage of direction under section 156(3) Cr.P.C? Case referred to larger bench
Whether sanction is necessary at the stage of direction under section 156(3) Cr.P.C? Case referred to larger bench
PC Act: Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii): Presumption can also be drawn for smaller bribe amounts further accused has not proved that rs.2000 bribe amount was a legal fee or repayment of loan
This judgment outlines the State’s appeal against a High Court decision that acquitted the accused under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. **Overview of Allegations** The case centers on the accused, a treasury assistant, who allegedly requested a bribe to facilitate the encashment of a leave salary bill. This demand was captured on tape, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act. Subsequently, a trap was organized based on this information, resulting in the recovery of the bribe from the accused after a thorough investigation was conducted. A final report was compiled, and charges were duly framed under the PC Act. **Trial Proceedings** During the trial, the prosecution presented a robust case by examining 12 witnesses and introducing 30 documents along with 10 material objects. Notably, the accused did not provide any defense evidence. The trial court ultimately found the accused guilty of offenses under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused subsequently appealed this conviction in the High Court, which led to an acquittal. As a result, the state has pursued this appeal. **Constructive Analysis** The analysis reviews the key components of Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, alongside Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. It emphasizes that a presumption under Section 20 can only be warranted when the prosecution establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally accepted money knowing it to be a bribe. A Constitution Bench has clarified the process for drawing inferences regarding offenses under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act in cases devoid of direct or primary evidence. Importantly, the examination revealed no procedural irregularities in granting sanction for prosecution. **Witness Contributions** The informant (P.W.1) played a significant role by recording the demand for illegal gratification on tape and supplying this evidence to the Lokayukta police. Following the tape recording, phenolphthalein-coated currency notes were presented to P.W.3, whose hands tested positive, validating the evidence. After receiving the bribe, the accused was arrested, and a seizure Mahazar was prepared along with the collection of pertinent materials. The corroborative testimonies from P.W.2 and P.W.3 reinforced P.W.1’s account. Additionally, P.W.4 confirmed that the accused had responsibilities related to receiving and verifying the surrender leave salary bill. P.W.5 provided insights into the sodium carbonate solution test conducted by the Investigating Officer (I.O.). Supportive testimony was also provided by the hotel owner, while P.W.7 confirmed that the informant prepared the surrender leave salary bill. Furthermore, P.W.12, the I.O., detailed the tape recording and the events of the trap proceedings. **Conclusion** The absence of oral or documentary evidence from the accused in the defense phase brought clarity to the prosecution’s case. The Apex Court upheld the findings regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The accused was unable to substantiate, during cross-examination, that the alleged bribe constituted a legal fee or loan repayment. Notably, the accused did not indicate any loan dealings with the complainant in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement. The presumption under Section 20 parallels Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, shifting the responsibility to the accused to show evidence of innocence regarding the charged offenses. In applying the “two-view theory” to this case, the conclusion has been reached that the criminal appeal is justified in being allowed. This case exemplifies the ongoing efforts to combat corruption and reinforce accountability within public service.
