9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of prosecution sanction by competent authority under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Interpretation of the specific provision under which the prosecution sanction was granted. 3. Jurisdictional challenge regarding the authority responsible for sanctioning the prosecution. Analysis: 1. The primary issue before the Supreme Court was to determine whether the prosecution of the appellant was sanctioned by the competent authority under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case involved the appellant, who was caught accepting illegal gratification, leading to his conviction under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court upheld the validity of the prosecution sanction, which was granted by the Ministry of Industrial Development and Company Affairs, signed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India. The appellant's challenge was based on the authentication of the sanction. 2. The prosecution sanction, as reproduced in the judgment, clearly outlined the allegations against the appellant and the reasons for prosecution under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sanction was granted under Section 6(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, authorizing the prosecution of the appellant for the stated offenses. The High Court validated this sanction, emphasizing the authority's careful examination of the material before granting it. 3. A new jurisdictional challenge was raised during the appeal, questioning the specific provision under which the prosecution sanction was granted and the authority responsible for such sanction. The appellant's counsel argued that the sanction should have been granted under Section 6(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and contended that only the Home Department of the Government of India had the authority to sanction the prosecution in this case. This argument was based on a Gazette Notification amending the Allocation of Business Rules. The Supreme Court allowed this new point to be raised and adjourned the hearing to verify if the Home Ministry had sanctioned the prosecution. 4. Ultimately, it was revealed during the hearing that the Home Ministry had not sanctioned the appellant's prosecution, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution was not valid without such sanction. As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellant's conviction and sentence. The appellant, who was on bail, had their bail bond deemed canceled. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper sanctioning authorities and jurisdictional requirements in prosecuting offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
|
