9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Mr. M.M. Rajendran against the judgment of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Madras dated 18-12-1992 passed in CC No. 1 of 1991 (Crime No. 3/90 -- Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police, Madras). The respondent was a Sub-Inspector of Police, Crimes attached to Saidapet Police Station. He was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Madras by the said order dated 18-12-1992 for the offence und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as because only a report of the Vigilance Department was placed before him. The High Court has also come to the finding that although the Personal Assistant to the City Commissioner of Police, Madras has deposed in the case to substantiate that proper sanction was accorded by the City Commissioner of Police, the witness has also stated that the report even though a detailed one was placed before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t if the sanction had not been accorded for which the criminal case could have been initiated against the respondent, there was no occasion either for the trial court or for the appeal court to consider the prosecution case on merits. Therefore, the High Court need not have made the finding on merits about the prosecution case. We make it clear that finding made by the courts on the merits of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
