Filter by Date
Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench- Five Judge)

Sita Soren Versus Union of India

Appeal (Crl.), 451 of 2019, Judgment Date: Sep 20, 2023

Full Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Special Police Establishment Thru. O.I.C. Santosh Singh Bhadoriya versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh

WRIT PETITION, 25917 of 2021, Judgment Date: Dec 05, 2022

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

RAKESH KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Appeal (Crl.), 1078 of 2021, Judgment Date: Sep 24, 2021

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

Parminder Kaur @ P.P. Kaur @ Soni Versus State of Punjab

Appeal (Crl.), 283 of 2011, Judgment Date: Jul 28, 2020

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

VIVEK BATRA Vs. U.O.I & ORS

Appeal (Crl.), 2491 of 2014, Judgment Date: Oct 18, 2016

Having gone through the copy of note-sheets relating to sanction in question placed before us as part of rejoinder affidavit, it is evident that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the competent authority before the sanction was accorded. Our perusal of the said record does not indicate that any decision was taken by the competent authority, at any point of Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

L. NARAYANA SWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Appeal (Crl.), 721 of 2016, Judgment Date: Sep 06, 2016

With this factual background, we advert to the questions of law that arise for consideration: (1) Whether an order directing further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. can be passed in relation to public servant in the absence of valid sanction and contrary to the judgments of this Court in Anil Kumar & Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr.[1] and Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Ors.[2]? (2) Whether a Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

NANJAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Appeal (Crl.), 1867 of 2012, Judgment Date: Jul 24, 2015

A plain reading of Section 19(1) (supra) leaves no manner of doubt that the same is couched in mandatory terms and forbids courts from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 against public servants except with the previous sanction of the competent authority enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 19. The provision contained Full Judgment

Allahabad High Court (Single Judge)

Manoj Kumar Dwivedi Vs State Of U.P. And Another

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, 2053,8434 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jul 22, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

VINOD CHANDRA SEMWAL Vs. SPL.POLICE ESTABLISGHMENT UJJAIN

Appeal (Crl.), 2129 of 2011, Judgment Date: Feb 24, 2015

There is nothing on record to suggest that it was executed at the instance of the appellant. If the delegatee has not acted in terms of the delegated powers, we are of the view that the delegator cannot be held to be guilty for such execution of the exchange deed. Though for some other reasons, we are of the view that it was not a fit Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

SANJAYSINH RAMRAO CHAVAN Vs. DATTATRAY GULABRAO PHALKE & ANR

Appeal (Crl.), 97 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jan 16, 2015

Whether the High Court is within its jurisdiction to direct the investigating officer to make a request for sanction for prosecution from the competent authority? Cognizance is taken prior to commencement of criminal proceedings. Taking of cognizance is thus a sine qua non or condition precedent for holding a valid trial. Cognizance is taken of an offence and not Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India

P.L.Tatwal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 456 OF 2014 Judgment Date: Feb 19, 2014

The  competent authority to give previous sanction is the  authority competent to remove one from service. No  doubt the appointing authority is the authority competent  to remove him from service.   The Statute is very clear that the authority competent to  remove an officer from service is the authority to give  sanction for prosecution. Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs M.K. Aiyappa & Anr.

Appeal (Crl.), 1590 of 2013, Judgment Date: Oct 01, 2013

Sub-section (3) of Section 19 has an object to achieve, which applies in circumstances where a Special Judge has already rendered a finding, sentence or order. In such an event, it shall not be reversed or altered by a court Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Appeal (Crl.), 2118 of 2008, Judgment Date: Dec 13, 2012

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Kerala Financial Corporation Vs. C. G. Narayanan

Appeal (Civil), 1118 of 2011, Judgment Date: Dec 04, 2012

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

DINESH KUMAR Versus CHAIRMAN, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Appeal (Crl.), 2170-2171 of 2011, Judgment Date: Nov 22, 2011

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India

MANSUKHLAL VITHALDAS CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, .... Judgment Date: Sep 03, 1997

From a perusal of Section 6, it would appear that the Central or the State Government or any other authority (depending upon the category of the public servant) has the right to consider the facts of each case and to decide whether that "public servant" is to be prosecuted or not. Since the Section clearly prohibits the Courts from taking cognizance of the offences specified therein, it envisages that Central or the State Government or the "other authority" has not Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India

MOHD. IQBAL, AHMAD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Appeal (Crl.), Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1973. Judgment Date: Jan 18, 1979

Any case instituted without proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must therefore be strictly complied with before any prosecution could be launched against public servants.  The presumption does not arise automatically but only on proof of certain circumstances that is to say, Full Judgment