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


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.