About Me

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short P.C Act) &Section 321 Cr.P.C - When once the Government have applied its mind and issued sanction, it cannot withdraw the sanction on a lame pretext of proceeding with department action against a charged public servant. the competent authority who issued sanction proceedings cannot exercise its power either under Section 19 of P.C. Act or under Section 21 of the Central General Clauses Act or Section 15 of the A.P. General Clauses Act to withdraw the sanction. I endorse the same view. Therefore, in the instant case the Government was not justified in withdrawing the sanction.-2015 Telangana &A.P. MSK LAW REPORT the prosecution case against the accused who is charged under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short P.C Act) is that the complainant was a conductor in APSRTC, Nellore Depot and accused was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women P.S, Nellore during relevant time and in respect of the complaint given by Swaroopa Raniwife of complainant, AO initially demanded Rs.2,000/- as bribe from the complainant for not taking action on the petition of his wife and on the request of the complainant he reduced the bribe amount to Rs.1,000/- and on 17.02.2006 at about 9:30 am at mechanic bunk situated opposite to Nippo Batteries Factory, Nellore, the accused was caught red-handed while accepting illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant and hence facing the charges for the offences stated supra. b) The trial Court framed charges and matter is coming up for trial. c) While-so, learned Public Prosecutor at that stage filed petition under Section 321 Cr.P.C submitting that the AO approached Government and made a representation to drop the criminal case and Government considered his representation and issued order in G.O.Ms.No.272/SC.A-3/2006-5 dt: 06.07.2007 (Home (SC.A) department) cancelling the sanction order earlier issued under G.O.Ms.No.272/SC.A3/2006-3 dated 22.09.2006 of Home (SC.A) department on the ground that it would meet the ends of justice if the AO were to face departmental action and in turn, D.G, ACB, A.P issued a memo vide Rc.No.38/RCT-NNL/2006 dated 01.10.2007 requesting the Spl.P.P, ACB to file petition under Section 321 Cr.P.C and therefore, he was filing the said petition. Learned Special Judge after thorough enquiry dismissed the petition on the following observations: In the withdrawal order the Government has not shown reasons as to why it came to conclusion to withdraw the criminal case against AO and to institute departmental action. It is not mentioned as to what material the Government have collected to conclude to withdraw the case and no such material is placed before the Court. Learned Spl.P.P simply filed a petition basing on the orders of the Government without applying his mind and without showing any grounds for withdrawal of the case. He has not shown any grounds which will further the ends of justice, public order and peace. Hence the revision.-2015 Telangana &A.P. MSK LAW REPORTS

Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short P.C Act)  &Section 321 Cr.P.C - When once the Government have applied its   mind and issued sanction, it cannot withdraw the sanction on a lame pretext of proceeding with department action against a charged public servant. the competent authority who issued sanction proceedings cannot exercise its power either under Section 19 of P.C. Act or under Section 21 of the Central General Clauses Act or Section 15 of the A.P. General Clauses Act to withdraw the sanction. I endorse the same view. Therefore, in the instant case the Government was not justified in withdrawing the sanction.-2015 Telangana &A.P. MSK LAW REPORT
the prosecution case against the
accused who is charged under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short P.C Act) is that the
complainant was a conductor in APSRTC, Nellore Depot and accused was  
the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women P.S, Nellore during relevant time and
in respect of the complaint given by Swaroopa Raniwife of complainant,
AO initially demanded Rs.2,000/- as bribe from the complainant for not
taking action on the petition of his wife and on the request of the
complainant he reduced the bribe amount to Rs.1,000/- and on 17.02.2006 at
about 9:30 am at mechanic bunk situated opposite to Nippo Batteries
Factory, Nellore, the accused was caught red-handed while accepting illegal
gratification of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant and hence facing the
charges for the offences stated supra.
b)      The trial Court framed charges and matter is coming up for trial.
c)      While-so, learned Public Prosecutor at that stage filed petition under
Section 321 Cr.P.C submitting that the AO approached Government and
made a representation to drop the criminal case and Government considered
his representation and issued order in G.O.Ms.No.272/SC.A-3/2006-5 dt:
06.07.2007 (Home (SC.A) department) cancelling the sanction order earlier
issued under G.O.Ms.No.272/SC.A3/2006-3 dated 22.09.2006 of Home  
(SC.A) department on the ground that it would meet the ends of justice if the
AO were to face departmental action and in turn, D.G, ACB, A.P issued a
memo vide Rc.No.38/RCT-NNL/2006 dated 01.10.2007 requesting the  
Spl.P.P, ACB to file petition under Section 321 Cr.P.C and therefore, he was
filing the said petition. Learned Special Judge after thorough enquiry
dismissed the petition on the following observations:
         In the withdrawal order the Government has not shown reasons as to
why it came to conclusion to withdraw the criminal case against AO and to
institute departmental action. It is not mentioned as to what material the
Government have collected to conclude to withdraw the case and no such
material is placed before the Court. Learned Spl.P.P simply filed a petition
basing on the orders of the Government without applying his mind and
without showing any grounds for withdrawal of the case. He has not shown
any grounds which will further the ends of justice, public order and peace.
          Hence the revision.-2015 Telangana &A.P. MSK LAW REPORTS


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.