9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Revision against order allowing prosecution to examine sanctioning authority under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Analysis: The case involved a revision against the order passed by the Special Judge, allowing the prosecution to examine the authority sanctioning the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner, a former Branch Manager, was charged with misappropriation of cash and offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act. During the trial, the defense raised the issue that the order of sanction under the Act was not proved, leading to the prosecution filing a petition under Section 311 for examination of the sanctioning authority. The defense objected, arguing that permitting the prosecution to examine the authority after the close of arguments was unjust. The learned Judge relied on the case law and held that proving the sanction order through the sanctioning authority did not amount to filling gaps in the prosecution case. The Judge considered it necessary in the interest of justice to examine the sanctioning authority for a just decision in the case. The Judge emphasized the discretionary and mandatory aspects of Section 311 of the Code, highlighting that the court must act if the just decision of the case demands it, regardless of the trial stage. The Judge concluded that in this case, examination of the sanctioning authority was necessary for a just decision, as no new material was brought by the defense requiring the prosecution to adduce evidence to rebut it. The Judge distinguished a previous case where only a passing reference was made to Section 311 without expressing a specific opinion on its application. The Judge found that the learned Judge did not commit any illegality or irregularity in passing the order, and therefore, interference was unwarranted. Consequently, the criminal revision was dismissed, and the lower court records were to be sent back promptly.
|
