9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having committed misappropriation of cash of Rs. 7000/-. He was charged for having committed offences under Sections 5(l)(c) and 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The trial commenced on 28-4-1982 and in due course 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 15 documents were proved and exhibited. Prosecution was closed on 25-9-1984, accused's statement was recorded on 21-1-1985 and arguments of both the parties were finally heard and closed on 25-3-1985. During argument it was submitted by the learned defence counsel that the order of sanction under Section 6 of the Act was not proved and the aforesaid technical defect was one of the grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cused must be aware of its existence. So, the accused is not taken by surprise if the sanctioning order is presently proved through the sanctioning authority. Such proof of the sanction order does not amount to filling up the gaps in the prosecution case. He concluded: ..In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I consider that examination of the sanctioning authority is. necessary for coming to a just decision in the case.... Hence considering all aspects of the matter, I think it is necessary in the interests of justice that the sanctioning authority should be examined as a witness in the case. In the leading case on the subject under discussion which has been followed not only by this Court but by other High Courts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the prosecution cannot be allowed to rebut the defence evidence unless the prisoner brings forward something suddenly and unexpectedly. In view of the legal principle laid down above, it is necessary to examine the relevant facts of this case. 5. Undisputedly, arguments in the case were over and on the same day on behalf of the prosecution a petition was filed for examination of the sanctioning authority with the intention of proving the sanction order which was all along in the record. Although the move was made by the prosecution, yet the learned Judge came to the specific conclusion that the evidence of the sanctioning authority was essential for the just decision of the case. Therefore, it was not a case in which fresh materials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
