9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act without obtaining sanction under S. 197 of Cr. P.C for launching the prosecution. Analysis: The appellant faced prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly misappropriating amounts payable as unemployment assistance. He contended that as a public servant, sanction under S. 197 of Cr. P.C was necessary for the prosecution to proceed. The appellant argued that since he could only be removed from office by the Director of Employment, not the Government, sanction from the Government was not required for his prosecution. The court noted that the requirement of sanction under S. 197 applies to public servants "not removable from his office save by or with the Government." Referring to a previous Division Bench decision, the court held that public servants removable by authorities other than the Government do not require sanction under S. 197 for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant's main contention was that as a public servant, he could only be removed from his office by the Director of Employment, not the Government, and therefore, sanction under S. 197 of Cr. P.C was not necessary for his prosecution. The court clarified that the requirement of sanction under S. 197 applies to public servants "not removable from his office save by or with the Government." The court cited a previous Division Bench decision where it was held that public servants removable by authorities other than the Government do not require sanction under S. 197 for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court emphasized that the wording of S. 197 indicates that sanction is required only for public servants "not removable from his office save by or with the Government." The court referred to a previous Division Bench decision that established public servants removable by authorities other than the Government do not fall under the category requiring sanction under S. 197 for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the view that the appellant did not require sanction under S. 197 for the prosecution to proceed. In conclusion, the court upheld that the appellant, as a public servant removable by the Director of Employment and not solely by the Government, did not need sanction under S. 197 of Cr. P.C for the prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act to proceed. The court referred to a previous decision to support its stance and dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming that the appellant could be prosecuted without the need for sanction under S. 197.
|
